Abstract
Background
The Institute of Medicine recommended that cancer survivors 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 (NCCCP) 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 (70% response rate), 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 pre-specified fields; 94% of those who used templates found them helpful. For each topic of an SCP, while 87%-89% of oncology providers felt it was very important for primary care providers to receive the information, only 58%-65% of respondents felt it was very important for patients to receive the information. Further, 33%-38% of respondents had mixed feelings about whether it was oncology providers’ responsibility 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.
Keywords: oncologist, survivorship, communication, quality of healthcare, primary healthcare
Introduction
There are 13.7 million people with a history of cancer living in the United States, 64% of whom have survived at least five years.1 Offsetting the benefit of long-term survival, many cancer survivors face significant health issues, such as ongoing risks of second cancers, recurrence, and late effects (consequences of the cancer and its treatment).1–6
In 2005, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recognized that cancer survivors may experience an inadequate transition from oncology-focused care to primary care.2 The roles of oncology and primary care providers remain ill-defined after treatment is complete.7,8 Often survivors continue to receive follow-up care from their oncology providers, resulting in the neglect of their general health.9 To facilitate improved coordination of post-treatment care between oncology and primary care providers, the IOM proposed the use of survivorship care plans (SCPs).2 SCPs are personalized documents presented to cancer patients at the end of treatment that summarize key aspects of cancer treatment and recommend appropriate ongoing medical care and self management.2 The purpose of the SCP is both to educate survivors and create a portable document that can be shared with primary care providers to facilitate coordinated care. Survivors and primary care providers have responded positively to the concept of SCPs.10–25 Survivorship experts have widely endorsed SCPs, and multiple professional societies and accrediting agencies have encouraged their use.1,8,26–32 Starting in 2015, the Commission on Cancer will evaluate the utilization of SCPs as a metric of quality of care.33
Persistent barriers to SCP use have been identified by oncology providers, who are faced with selecting or creating a template, compiling information (often from multiple sources) about survivors, and discussing and distributing the SCPs. Oncology providers generally feel positive about SCPs, but report some hesitation in integrating SCPs into clinical practice.10,15,34,35 Indeed, the implementation of SCPs nationwide has been slow, with a recent report showing that fewer than half of NCI-designated cancer centers use SCPs for their breast or colorectal cancer survivors.10 Among community and academic cancer programs in the Southeastern United States, fewer than a quarter of providers in each program use SCPs for their survivors.36
A potential problem for the implementation of SCPs is the lack of evidence of benefit of SCP use. The only randomized trial to date that investigated outcomes following SCP use found that among patients with early-stage breast cancer, receiving an SCP was not associated with a change in cancer-related distress, quality of life, and other health outcomes.37 These findings may discourage oncologists from embracing the use of SCPs. We hypothesize that there are two major barriers to the widespread uptake of SCPs: the lack of resources to integrate SCPs into busy clinical practices and buy-in from oncology providers. Our aim was to assess community oncology providers’ opinions about SCPs, including perceptions of: the importance of SCPs, the responsibility of oncology providers to provide SCPs, barriers to SCP use, and the usefulness of implementation strategies employed at their practices. Community oncology providers are critical in understanding SCP plan use, because the majority of cancer patients receive care in community settings.38 Importantly, we included non-physician oncology providers who often are responsible for SCP use.39–42 The oncology providers in our survey came from hospitals within the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP), an NCI-funded program of cancer centers at community hospitals in the United States. The NCCCP was developed to achieve quality and research objectives in cancer care, including the identification of evidence-based survivorship care services. Having committed to the development of SCPs as part of the NCCCP program deliverables, these oncology providers are in a unique position to provide insight into the use of SCPs.
Methods
Study population
We contacted the Principal Investigators at each NCCCP site and invited them to collaborate on the study. We recruited oncology providers from the fourteen NCCCP sites who agreed to collaborate. Eligible participants were medical and radiation oncologists, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and physician assistants who provided chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or hormone therapy to adult cancer patients. Fellows and residents were excluded. We excluded surgeons, because generally only a minority of their patients are cancer patients, and the topic may be less relevant to them.
Instrument
Our questionnaire assessed oncology providers’ opinions about SCPs, specifically regarding practice characteristics, use of SCPs, perceived value of SCPs, and barriers and facilitators to the implementation of SCPs. Of note, some NCCCP sites have multiple oncology clinics. Individual survey respondents commented on SCP use within their clinics, not within the entire NCCCP site. We described the SCP in terms of four topics outlined by the IOM: 1) cancer diagnosis, 2) cancer treatment, 3) recommended ongoing care, and 4) what aspects of care the oncology practice will provide. We asked whether the respondent or other clinicians in their practice provide written summaries of these four topics for their patients at the completion of cancer treatment. We investigated buy-in by eliciting beliefs about SCPs and their commitment to providing SCPs – specifically, whether it was considered important for patients and primary care providers to receive SCPs and whether providing SCPs to patients is the responsibility of oncology providers. We selected barriers and facilitators from the literature on SCP implementation.15,19,25,35,43–45 We listed eight barriers and asked whether each is (or would be) a problem for their practice. Similarly, we listed seven strategies and asked whether they were used and, if so, which were helpful. Using an open-ended response, we asked respondents who provide SCPs how long it typically takes to complete a report.. Finally, we elicited comments about barriers, strategies, and SCPs in general. We pilot-tested the questionnaire at one NCCCP site and edited the survey for the main study.
Recruitment and data collection
At each NCCCP site, a site lead invited eligible providers to participate. The site lead gave a gift card to each respondent. Site leads returned completed anonymous questionnaires to Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) for analysis. Surveys were distributed between September 2011 and June 2012, with each site enrolling participants for one to two months until all eligible providers had either participated or chosen not to participate. This study was deemed exempt from Institutional Review Board at MSKCC and at all of the participating sites.
Statistical Analysis
We reported participant characteristics, SCP use, opinions on SCP provision, perceived barriers, and perceived value of implementation strategies using descriptive statistics. Differences between physicians and non-physicians (advanced practice nurses and physician assistants) were assessed with t-tests and chi-squared statistics. Missing responses were removed from the analysis on a question-by-question basis.
Results
Across the fourteen sites, 245 oncology providers (70% of eligible providers, range 28%-100% across sites) completed the survey, with an average of 17.5 participants per site (standard deviation = 5.8) (Table 1). There was no difference in profession between participants and non-participants (p>0.05). Each survey item had fewer than 10% of responses missing, with the exception of two items: the amount of time to complete an SCP (an open-ended question) and whether limiting the content of the SCP was a useful strategy (11% and 13% of responses missing, respectively).
Table 1.
Participant characteristics (N=245)
| N | (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Profession of participants | ||
| Physician | ||
| Medical oncology | 117 | (48) |
| Radiation oncology | 37 | (15) |
| Nurse practitioner or clinical nurse specialist | 66 | (27) |
| Physician assistant | 25 | (10) |
| Participants at each site | ||
| Billings Clinic Cancer Center (MT) | 15 | (6) |
| Geisinger Medical Center Cancer Institute (PA) | 21 | (9) |
| Gundersen Lutheran Center for Cancer & Blood Disorders (WI) | 18 | (7) |
| Hartford Hospital, Helen and Harry Gray Cancer Center (CT) | 20 | (8) |
| Lehigh Valley Hospital, John and Dorothy Morgan Cancer Center (PA) | 29 | (12) |
| Mercy Cancer Center (IA) | 14 | (6) |
| Norton Cancer Institute (KY) | 12 | (5) |
| Penrose Cancer Center (CO) | 19 | (8) |
| Providence Portland Medical Center (OR) | 19 | (8) |
| Seton Family of Hospitals (TX) | 4 | (2) |
| Spartanburg Regional Hospital, Gibbs Regional Cancer Center (SC) | 14 | (6) |
| St. Elizabeth Cancer Center (NE) | 21 | (9) |
| St. Luke’s Regional Medical Center (ID) | 22 | (9) |
| St. Mary’s Health Care, The Lacks Cancer Center (MI) | 17 | (7) |
| Mean | (SD) | |
| Patients seen per week a | 36 | (25) |
N=230 due to missing responses, SD= Standard deviation
Use of SCPs
Fewer than half of respondents reported that they ever provide their patients with summaries of diagnosis, summaries of treatment, recommendations for ongoing care, or information about what aspects of care the oncology practice will provide (38%, 39%, 48%, and 49%, respectively) (Table 2). However, 52% of providers (N=128) ever provide any component of an SCP to their patients, and this did not vary by the profession of the respondent. Three quarters of respondents (N=183) reported that they or someone at their practice ever provides any component of an SCP to the respondent’s patients. In each clinic where SCPs were provided by the respondent or another person, SCPs were provided by oncologists, non-physician clinicians, and social workers, working alone or in combination.
Table 2.
Provision of SCP components (N=245)
| Always | Sometimes | Never | Don’t Know |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Component of SCP | N | (%) | N | (%) | N | (%) | N | (%) |
| By provider | ||||||||
| Diagnosis | 20 | (8) | 74 | (30) | 141 | (58) | 10 | (4) |
| Treatment | 20 | (8) | 77 | (31) | 136 | (56) | 12 | (5) |
| Recommended ongoing care | 45 | (18) | 74 | (30) | 117 | (48) | 9 | (4) |
| What aspects of care your practice will follow-up | 46 | (19) | 73 | (30) | 116 | (47) | 10 | (4) |
| By other person in practice | ||||||||
| Diagnosis | 19 | (8) | 101 | (41) | 77 | (31) | 48 | (20) |
| Treatment | 19 | (8) | 103 | (42) | 73 | (30) | 50 | (20) |
| Recommended ongoing care | 27 | (11) | 107 | (44) | 65 | (27) | 46 | (19) |
| What aspects of care your practice will follow-up | 32 | (13) | 99 | (40) | 64 | (26) | 50 | (20) |
Among the 128 participants who reported that they ever give any component of SCPs to their patients, 66% (N=85) estimated in open-ended format how long it takes on average to complete. Just under half (48%, N=41) reported that it takes 15 minutes or less, 22% (N=19) reported between 16 minutes and a half hour, 12% (N=10) between 31 minutes and an hour. Sixteen percent (N=14) reported that it takes over a day. We dichotomized the time for SCP completion near the median (15 minutes or less vs. more than 15 minutes), and we found that more non-physicians reported taking more than 15 minutes than did physicians (72% and 32%, respectively, p<0.05).
Importance of SCPs
Fifty-eight percent to 65% of respondents felt it was very important for patients to receive information regarding the topics in an SCP (i.e., diagnosis, treatment, recommended care, and aspects of care followed by the oncology practice) (Table 3). Across topics, 87%-89% of respondents felt receiving an SCP was very important to primary care providers. Physicians were less likely than non-physicians to feel information was very important for patients across all topics (47%-56% for physicians compared to 82%-90% for non-physicians, all p<0.05). Similarly, physicians were less likely than non-physicians to feel information was very important for primary care providers across all topics (82%-85% for physicians compared to 93%-95% for non-physicians, all p<0.05) except the importance of providing information about diagnosis (88% for physicians and 92% for non-physicians, n.s.) (Data not shown).
Table 3.
Opinions on value of and responsibility for providing SCPs (N=245)
| Importance of receiving a written report with information summarizing… |
Very Important |
Somewhat Important |
Not at all Important |
Don’t Know |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | (%) | N | (%) | N | (%) | N | (%) | |
| Diagnosis | ||||||||
| For the patient | 143 | (58) | 83 | (34) | 10 | (4) | 9 | (4) |
| For the primary care provider | 218 | (89) | 23 | (9) | 3 | (1) | 1 | (<1) |
| Treatment | ||||||||
| For the patient | 149 | (61) | 79 | (32) | 6 | (2) | 11 | (4) |
| For the primary care provider | 215 | (88) | 27 | (11) | 2 | (1) | 1 | (<1) |
| Recommended Ongoing Care | ||||||||
| For the patient | 160 | (65) | 67 | (27) | 5 | (2) | 13 | (5) |
| For the primary care provider | 215 | (88) | 27 | (11) | 2 | (1) | 1 | (<1) |
| What aspects of care your practice will follow-up | ||||||||
| For the patient | 146 | (60) | 78 | (32) | 9 | (4) | 12 | (5) |
| For the primary care provider | 213 | (87) | 29 | (12) | 2 | (1) | 1 | (<1) |
|
Is it the responsibility of oncology providers to give patients a report summarizing… |
Definitely |
Mixed Feelings |
Definitely Not |
Don’t Know |
||||
| Diagnosis | 148 | (60) | 92 | (38) | 5 | (2) | 0 | (0) |
| Treatment | 152 | (62) | 88 | (36) | 4 | (2) | 1 | (<1) |
| Recommended ongoing care | 159 | (65) | 81 | (33) | 4 | (2) | 1 | (<1) |
| What aspects of care your practice will follow-up | 151 | (62) | 88 | (36) | 5 | (2) | 1 | (<1) |
Between 60% and 65% of respondents felt that providing summaries of each topic was definitely the responsibility of oncology providers, and 33%-38% of respondents had mixed feelings about whether it was the oncology providers’ responsibility (Table 3). Opinions differed by provider type. Physicians were less likely than non-physicians to feel it was definitely the responsibility of oncology providers to provide summaries, compared to having mixed feelings or feeling it was definitely not their responsibility (48%-50% among physicians compared with 78%-87% among non-physicians, all p<0.05) (Data not shown).
Barriers to SCP use
The most widely reported barrier to implementing SCPs was adequate personnel to complete the SCP (69%, N=170), followed by time to collect information to complete the SCP (64%, N=156) (Table 4). Twenty-nine respondents added that constructing the SCP, specifically collecting treatment information and creating the report or template, poses a difficulty. Thirteen respondents volunteered that patients either do not understand or do not want additional information.
Table 4.
Barriers to the creation and distribution of SCPs (N=245)
| This is / would be a problem |
This is not / would not be a problem |
Not Sure | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | (%) | N | (%) | N | (%) | |
| Personnel to complete the SCP | 170 | (69) | 59 | (24) | 16 | (7) |
| Time to collect information | 156 | (64) | 74 | (30) | 15 | (6) |
| Time to discuss the SCP with the patient | 112 | (46) | 118 | (48) | 15 | (6) |
| Personnel to discuss the SCP | 112 | (46) | 115 | (47) | 18 | (7) |
| Resources unrelated to time or personnel | 105 | (43) | 103 | (42) | 37 | (15) |
| Institutional support | 82 | (33) | 132 | (54) | 31 | (13) |
| Support from colleagues | 54 | (22) | 163 | (67) | 28 | (11) |
| Medical or legal issues | 42 | (17) | 169 | (69) | 34 | (14) |
Strategies for SCP use
To describe the utility of different implementation strategies, we limited our analysis to the 183 respondents who indicated that someone in their practice provides SCPs to their patients. For each of the seven implementation strategies described in the questionnaire, fewer than half of this group reported that the strategy is every used (Table 5). The most commonly used strategy was to delegate the completion of an SCP to a single person (N=73, 40%), and most of those who use this strategy (N=65, 89%) found this helpful. However, 49% of those who reported delegating SCP creation to a single person (N=36) listed multiple people involved in the creation of SCPs, suggesting that delegation of this task to a single person does not happen consistently. All of the strategies were found helpful by at least 74% of respondents who reported using them. The most widely endorsed strategy was the use of a template with pre-specified fields (N=58 out of 62 who use this strategy, 94%). In post hoc chi-squared tests, we found none of the strategies correlated with the time to complete an SCP (all p<0.05).
Table 5.
Value of strategies for the implementation of SCPs among providers who use them (N=183)
| Used in Practice |
Helpfulness of Strategy | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Helpful | Not Helpful |
Don’t Know |
||||||
| N | (%) | N | (%) | N | (%) | N | (%) | |
| Delegate completion of SCP to one person | 73 | (40) | 65 | (89) | 2 | (3) | 6 | (8) |
| Integrate SCP into survivorship visit | 66 | (36) | 57 | (86) | 3 | (5) | 6 | (9) |
| Use template with pre-specified fields | 62 | (34) | 58 | (94) | 3 | (5) | 1 | (2) |
| Limit the content of SCP | 54 | (30) | 48 | (89) | 0 | (0) | 6 | (11) |
| Bill for completion/discussion | 39 | (21) | 31 | (79) | 5 | (13) | 3 | (8) |
| Limit SCP delivery to certain patients | 31 | (17) | 23 | (74) | 6 | (19) | 2 | (6) |
| Integrate SCP into electronic health record | 25 | (14) | 20 | (80) | 3 | (12) | 2 | (8) |
Open-ended comments about timing of SCP delivery
In response to suggestions for a better time to provide SCPs than after treatment completion, 45 respondents volunteered that before or during treatment would be better, including suggestions for early discussions of treatment plans and ongoing conversations throughout treatment.
When asked to volunteer additional strategies that are or would be helpful in their practice, the only new strategy that emerged was the need for training on the use of SCPs, including a specific call for evidence supporting SCP use (9 comments).
Open-ended comments about SCPs
Eighty-eight respondents (36%) provided at least one comment about SCPs. Thirty respondents expressed that SCPs are (or would be) valuable. Three comments expressed an interest in SCPs becoming part of the standard of care for all patients. In contrast, nine comments expressed reservations about the value of SCPs, including the feeling that patients are satisfied with their verbal conversations about survivorship, patient complaints about being billed for SCPs, the additional stress that a large amount of information can cause for a patient, and the uncertain benefit to patients. Two respondents mentioned the lack of published evidence to support benefit of SCPs.
Twenty comments addressed suggestions for the content of SCPs, including recommendations for families, detailed chemotherapy information, separate plans for different cancers, and updates when guidelines change. Two comments addressed targeting the content of SCPs to patient needs, and three comments recommended that SCPs be concise.
Discussion
While oncology leaders, survivorship experts, survivors, and primary care providers all express positive sentiments about SCPs, oncology providers are not uniformly providing them. This is true of our sample of community-based oncology providers in NCCCP hospitals and it has been seen at NCI-designated cancer centers as well.10 Recognizing the upcoming Commission on Cancer requirement, and the fact that NCCCP providers have incentive to promote quality improvement in survivorship care, one might hypothesize that providers in these two settings would be early adopters of strategies to implement the use of SCPs, suggesting that implementation may be even lower at other practices. Our study provides further insight into why there might still be limited use of this intervention among oncology practices.
Having adequate and appropriately trained staff to complete the SCP is critical for oncology practices. Delegating a single person to complete the SCP was reported as helpful to 89% of the participants who do so, and multiple participants suggested the potential usefulness of a survivorship team approach. Non-physician providers, suggested by two participants, are frequently employed in survivorship care and often fill an important role in SCP implementation.39,41,46
SCP use also requires time. Prior studies estimated the time to complete an SCP is between 1 and 2 hours.16,19,45 Our results suggest a less time-consuming process for most providers, although there was significant variation. It is unknown whether providers in our study are completing entire SCPs or more brief summaries of one or more topics. Regardless, the time to complete an SCP was listed as a challenge by 61% of respondents who provide SCPs and as a potential challenge to 67% of those who do not provide SCPs. The time needed to discuss the SCP with the patient also poses a problem for providers, although our findings suggest that this challenge is less significant.
Similar to other published surveys of oncologists, The majority of both oncologists and non-physician oncology providers in our study think SCPs are somewhat or very important to both survivors and their primary care providers.15,17 However, providers perceive that SCPs provide greater benefit for primary care providers than for patients, with more than 85% reporting that each topic (diagnosis, treatment, recommended ongoing care, or aspects of oncology care follow-up) was very important for primary care providers and fewer than two-thirds reporting that each topic was very important to patients. It is possible that this perception arose in part from the technical presentation of the American Society of Clinical Oncology survivorship care plans, which likely are more relevant to clinicians than to patients. Ironically, SCPs were conceptualized as a patient-centered intervention that could enable survivors to manage their own health and be informed participants in their ongoing health care. If oncology providers doubt the relevance of SCPs for survivors, they may be less likely to offer SCPs to survivors and, even if they do, the content may be directed more toward primary care providers than survivors themselves.
The perceived minimized relevance of SCPs for survivors is also troubling in light of the impending workforce shortages in both oncology and primary care.28,38,47–50 Oncology practices will likely feel increasing pressure to stop seeing cancer survivors, and survivors may have difficulty seeking ongoing primary care. Survivors will need to take an active role in seeking informed care, whether from an oncology or primary care provider (or both), and a survivor-centered SCP is critical in assisting their self-management and assuring continued comprehensive survivorship care.
We found ambivalence about whether oncology providers should be responsible for providing SCPs. Just under two-thirds of respondents felt that oncology providers were definitely responsible for providing information to their patients, and roughly a third reported mixed feelings about oncology providers being responsible. Despite mixed feelings, oncology providers are in the best position to disseminate personalized information regarding diagnosis and treatment – the aspect of SCP completion that likely takes the most time. In contrast, although oncology providers are in the best position to provide information about what follow-up care is recommended, some of this information may not differ within subgroups of cancer survivors and, therefore, need not be personalized for each patient. For example, while recommendations for DEXA scans depend on specific criteria and require personalization, many cancer-specific SCPs provided by the American Society of Clinical Oncology offer a generic list of ongoing tests and visits with recommended frequency, making it unnecessary for oncology providers to document this information for every survivor’s SCP.51–54 Similarly, a description of what aspects of care the oncology provider intends to oversee likely does not vary widely, if at all, between patients. (For example, whether an oncologist takes responsibility for surveillance colonoscopy likely does not vary between colorectal cancer survivors.) Despite some ambivalence about whether they should provide this information, of all parties involved, the oncology providers who complete and disseminate SCPs are in the best position to clarify their preferred division of responsibilities. If generic information can easily be entered into SCPs, resources can be directed toward the more time-consuming entry of patient-specific data.
Comments by respondents confirmed that while oncology providers find SCPs to be a good idea, there are also mixed feelings about the benefit of these documents. A minority of respondents use the strategies we listed for implementing SCPs. Even considering that some respondents may be unaware of how SCPs are implemented in their practices, the rates of use (12–40%) are low. Some strategies, such as integrating SCPs into an electronic record, are difficult to enact. However, simpler strategies, such as using existing SCP templates or limiting the content of the SCP to a brief summary, are rarely in place. Because there is not yet evidence regarding which elements of SCPs improve outcomes, choosing concise templates and limiting content can be challenging. However, choices about content may be informed from a growing body of literature on survivor and primary care provider needs, which emphasize the salient preferences for information among survivors (particularly information on self-management, signs of recurrence, and coordination of providers) and primary care providers (including information about coordination of care, recommendations for surveillance, and information about late effects). 10,21,55–57.
Although it is a less simple strategy to enact, automatically populating SCPs from the electronic health record could capitalize on data already being entered for clinical use and simplify SCP use in the long run. With an electronic platform linked to medical records, patient-specific information that could be used to direct ongoing care (such as medical data relevant to whether DEXA scans are necessary for breast cancer survivors) as well as more general guidelines for follow-up could be directly imported into the SCP, minimizing the need to manually enter information. Some data relevant to treatment and diagnosis may already be captured for cancer registries. An electronic health record could facilitate the use of these data for the SCP. In our study, only 16% of respondents who provide SCPs have them integrated into the electronic health record, suggesting one way to facilitate the implementation of SCPs.
Finally, there were significant differences in the perspectives of oncologists and non-physician oncology providers. Oncologists were less likely than their counterparts to feel that receiving an SCP is important – both to survivors and their primary care providers. Oncologists were also less likely than non-physicians to feel that oncology providers are definitely responsible for providing SCPs. These differences underscore the increased involvement of non-physician clinicians in providing survivorship care (and SCPs).39,41 While physicians may be focused primarily on treatment and surveillance, non-physicians may have a broader perspective on comprehensive survivorship needs, including the need to communicate about ongoing care with patients and primary care providers.
Our study has limitations. Respondents may have been unaware of who else in the practice provides SCPs. One potential ramification of this is that providers who do not use SCPs may not be aware of the challenges involved. To explore this possibility, we conducted a sensitivity analysis of the barrier items, limiting the analysis to the 128 providers who themselves provide SCPs. Among respondents who personally provide SCPs to their patients, the same patterns of barriers were present as with the entire sample, with personnel and time to complete the SCP endorsed by the highest proportions of respondents, suggesting that those who do not personally provide SCPs still understand challenges involved in implementation. It is important to include responses of all participants, regardless of SCP use, as the perception of barriers may be responsible for whether providers use SCPs. Finally, the list of barriers and strategies that we presented in our questionnaire may not be complete. However, write-in responses reiterated many of the barriers and strategies presented, and few new barriers and strategies were suggested.
To our knowledge, this is the first study to explicitly describe barriers to SCP use, strategies for SCP implementation, and buy-in from oncology providers. With a high response rate (70%) from both non-physician and physician oncology providers at community hospitals across the United States, we found that resource issues to create information-rich SCPs pose a significant barrier to creating SCPs. Despite broad approval of SCPs by survivors and primary care providers, implementation will likely remain limited unless resources become available to overcome significant barriers. Existing strategies to reduce burden are rarely used, and oncology providers may benefit from training focusing on implementation strategies, as some respondents suggested. Community cancer centers aiming to provide SCPs (perhaps in response to Commission on Cancer accreditation standards) can help by working to enable the linkage of SCPs to electronic medical records. More critically, we found limited buy-in for SCP use, particularly in terms of the perceived value for the survivor and the idea that oncology providers are responsible for SCP use. Addressing practical challenges may not be enough to earn the buy-in of oncology providers. Ultimately, oncology providers are key stakeholders who do the work involved in providing SCPs to survivors, and they need to feel that this work is worth the effort. Proponents of SCP use may benefit from extending education about the information survivors and primary care providers want from SCPs, emphasizing the importance of the SCP as a tool to improve care coordination.
Acknowledgments
Financial support from NCI R03-CA-144682-01 and NCI K05 CA160724-02
Footnotes
No financial disclosures to report.
A survey of 245 community oncology providers found that despite widespread enthusiasm for survivorship care plans (SCPs) among primary care providers and survivors, provision of SCPs by oncology providers will likely remain limited unless oncology practices receive additional resources to overcome significant implementation barriers. We found tempered enthusiasm for SCPs among oncology providers, many of whom 1) perceived limited value for survivors or 2) did not feel responsible for SCP dissemination.
References
- 1.Cancer Treatment and Survivorship Facts & Figures 2012-2013. Atlanta: 2012. [Google Scholar]
- 2.From Cancer Patient to Cancer Survivor: Lost in Transition. Washington, D.C: Institute of Medicine and National Research Council; 2005. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Harrington CB, Hansen JA, Moskowitz M, Todd BL, Feuerstein M. It's not over when it's over: long-term symptoms in cancer survivors--a systematic review. Int J Psychiatry Med. 2010;40(2):163–181. doi: 10.2190/PM.40.2.c. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Stricker CT, Jacobs LA. Physical late effects in adult cancer survivors. Oncology (Williston Park) 2008 Jul;22(8 Suppl Nurse Ed):33–41. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Deimling GT, Bowman KF, Sterns S, Wagner LJ, Kahana B. Cancer-related health worries and psychological distress among older adult, long-term cancer survivors. Psychooncology. 2006 Apr;15(4):306–320. doi: 10.1002/pon.955. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Stein KD, Syrjala KL, Andrykowski MA. Physical and psychological long-term and late effects of cancer. Cancer. 2008 Jun 1;112(11 Suppl):2577–2592. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23448. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Cheung WY, Neville BA, Cameron DB, Cook EF, Earle CC. Comparisons of Patient and Physician Expectations for Cancer Survivorship Care. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Mar 30; doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.20.3232. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Grunfeld E, Earle CC. The interface between primary and oncology specialty care: treatment through survivorship. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010. 2010;(40):25–30. doi: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgq002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Earle CC, Neville BA. Under use of necessary care among cancer survivors. Cancer. 2004 Oct 15;101(8):1712–1719. doi: 10.1002/cncr.20560. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Salz T, Oeffinger KC, McCabe MS, Layne TM, Bach PB. Survivorship care plans in research and practice. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012 Jan 12;12(10) doi: 10.3322/caac.20142. 20142. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Spain PD, Oeffinger KC, Candela J, McCabe M, Ma X, Tonorezos ES. Response to a treatment summary and care plan among adult survivors of pediatric and young adult cancer. J Oncol Pract. 2012 May;8(3):196–202. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2011.000345. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Baravelli C, Krishnasamy M, Pezaro C, et al. The views of bowel cancer survivors and health care professionals regarding survivorship care plans and post treatment follow up. J Cancer Surviv. 2009 Jun;3(2):99–108. doi: 10.1007/s11764-009-0086-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Brennan ME, Butow P, Marven M, Spillane AJ, Boyle FM. Survivorship care after breast cancer treatment - Experiences and preferences of Australian women. Breast. 2011 Jun;20(3):271–277. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2010.12.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Burg MA, Lopez ED, Dailey A, Keller ME, Prendergast B. The potential of survivorship care plans in primary care follow-up of minority breast cancer patients. J Gen Intern Med. 2009 Nov;24(Suppl 2):S467–S471. doi: 10.1007/s11606-009-1012-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Hewitt ME, Bamundo A, Day R, Harvey C. Perspectives on post-treatment cancer care: qualitative research with survivors, nurses, and physicians. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Jun 1;25(16):2270–2273. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.10.0826. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Jefford M, Lotfi-Jam K, Baravelli C, et al. Development and pilot testing of a nurse-led posttreatment support package for bowel cancer survivors. Cancer Nurs. 2011;34(3):E1–E10. doi: 10.1097/NCC.0b013e3181f22f02. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Kantsiper M, McDonald EL, Geller G, Shockney L, Snyder C, Wolff AC. Transitioning to breast cancer survivorship: Perspectives of patients, cancer specialists, and primary care providers. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2009;24(SUPPL. 2):S459–S466. doi: 10.1007/s11606-009-1000-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Marbach TJ, Griffie J. Patient preferences concerning treatment plans, survivorship care plans, education, and support services. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2011 May 1;38(3):335–342. doi: 10.1188/11.ONF.335-342. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Miller R. Implementing a survivorship care plan for patients with breast cancer. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2008 Jun;12(3):479–487. doi: 10.1188/08.CJON.479-487. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Royak-Schaler R, Passmore SR, Gadalla S, et al. Exploring patient-physician communication in breast cancer care for African American women following primary treatment. Oncol. Nurs. Forum. 2008 Forum;35(5):836–843. doi: 10.1188/08.ONF.836-843. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Smith SL, Singh-Carlson S, Downie L, Payeur N, Wai ES. Survivors of breast cancer: patient perspectives on survivorship care planning. J Cancer Surviv. 2011 Jun 4; doi: 10.1007/s11764-011-0185-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Salz T, Oeffinger K, Lewis P, Williams R, Rhyne R, Yeazel M. Primary care providers’ needs and preferences for information about colorectal cancer survivorship care. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine. 2012 doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2012.05.120083. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Bober SL, Recklitis CJ, Campbell EG, et al. Caring for cancer survivors: A survey of primary care physicians. Cancer. 2009;115(SUPPL. 18):4409–4418. doi: 10.1002/cncr.24590. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Shalom MM, Hahn EE, Casillas J, Ganz PA. Do Survivorship Care Plans Make a Difference? A Primary Care Provider Perspective. Journal of Oncology Practice. 2011 Sep 1;7(5):314–318. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2010.000208. 2011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Faul LA, Rivers B, Shibata D, et al. Survivorship care planning in colorectal cancer: feedback from survivors & providers. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2012 Mar;30(2):198–216. doi: 10.1080/07347332.2011.651260. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Feuerstein M. The cancer survivorship care plan: health care in the context of cancer. J Oncol Pract. 2009 May;5(3):113–115. doi: 10.1200/JOP.0934406. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Earle CC. Failing to plan is planning to fail: improving the quality of care with survivorship care plans. J Clin Oncol. 2006 Nov 10;24(32):5112–5116. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.5284. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Ganz PA. Quality of care and cancer survivorship: the challenge of implementing the institute of medicine recommendations. J Oncol Pract. 2009 May;5(3):101–105. doi: 10.1200/JOP.0934402. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.President's Cancer Panel. Living Beyond Cancer: Finding a New Balance. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2004. [Google Scholar]
- 30.Boyajian R. Survivorship treatment summary and care plan: tools to address patient safety issues? Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2009 Oct;13(5):584–586. doi: 10.1188/09.CJON.584-586. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Denlinger CS, Carlson RW, Are M, et al. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Survivorship. 2013;1:2013. 3/8/13. [Google Scholar]
- 32.ASCO. Cancer Survivorship: Next Steps for Patients and Their Families. 2011 [Google Scholar]
- 33.Cancer program standards 2012: Ensuring patient-centered care. 2011 [Google Scholar]
- 34.Campbell M, Tessaro I, Gellin M, et al. Adult cancer survivorship care: experiences from the LIVESTRONG centers of excellence network. Journal of Cancer Survivorship. 2011:1–12. doi: 10.1007/s11764-011-0180-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Watson EK, Sugden EM, Rose PW. Views of primary care physicians and oncologists on cancer follow-up initiatives in primary care: An online survey. Journal of Cancer Survivorship. 2010;4(2):159–166. doi: 10.1007/s11764-010-0117-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Birken SA, Mayer DK, Weiner BJ. Survivorship Care Plans: Prevalence and Barriers to Use. J Cancer Educ. 2013 Mar 24; doi: 10.1007/s13187-013-0469-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Grunfeld E, Julian JA, Pond G, et al. Evaluating survivorship care plans: results of a randomized clinical trial with breast cancer patients. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2011 doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.36.8373. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Erikson C, Salsberg E, Forte G, Bruinooge S, Goldstein M. Future supply and demand for oncologists: Challenges to assuring access to oncology services. Journal of Oncology Practice. 2007;3(2):79–86. doi: 10.1200/JOP.0723601. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Hahn EE, Ganz PA. Survivorship Programs and Care Plans in Practice: Variations on a Theme. Journal of Oncology Practice. 2011 Mar 1;7(2):70–75. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2010.000115. 2011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Landier W. Survivorship care: essential components and models of delivery. Oncology (Williston Park) 2009 Apr;23:46–53. u4 Suppl Nurse Ed. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.McCabe MS, Jacobs L. Survivorship care: models and programs. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2008 Aug;24(3):202–207. doi: 10.1016/j.soncn.2008.05.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Oeffinger KC, McCabe MS. Models for delivering survivorship care. J Clin Oncol. 2006 Nov 10;24(32):5117–5124. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.07.0474. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Horning SJ. Follow-up of adult cancer survivors: new paradigms for survivorship care planning. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2008 Apr;22(2):201–210. doi: 10.1016/j.hoc.2008.01.005. v. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Merport A, Lemon SC, Nyambose J, Prout MN. The use of cancer treatment summaries and care plans among Massachusetts physicians. Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer. 2012 Apr 14; doi: 10.1007/s00520-012-1458-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Stricker CT, Jacobs LA, Risendal B, et al. Survivorship care planning after the institute of medicine recommendations: how are we faring? J Cancer Surviv. 2011 Dec;5(4):358–370. doi: 10.1007/s11764-011-0196-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Grant M, Economou D, Ferrell BR. Oncology nurse participation in survivorship care. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2010 Dec 1;14(6):709–715. doi: 10.1188/10.CJON.709-715. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Debono D. Coping with the oncology workforce shortage: Transitioning oncology follow-up care to primary care providers. Journal of Oncology Practice. 2010;6(4):203–205. doi: 10.1200/JOP.777005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Klabunde CN, Ambs A, Keating NL, et al. The role of primary care physicians in cancer care. J Gen Intern Med. 2009 Sep;24(9):1029–1036. doi: 10.1007/s11606-009-1058-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Potosky AL, Han PK, Rowland J, et al. Differences Between Primary Care Physicians' and Oncologists' Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Regarding the Care of Cancer Survivors. J Gen Intern Med. 2011 Jul 22; doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1808-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Warren JL, Mariotto AB, Meekins A, Topor M, Brown ML. Current and future utilization of services from medical oncologists. J Clin Oncol. 2008 Jul 1;26(19):3242–3247. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.6357. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Colon Cancer Survivorship Care Plan: American Society of Clinical Oncology. version. 2007;2 [Google Scholar]
- 52.Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Plan: American Society of Clinical Oncology. version. 2008;2 [Google Scholar]
- 53. [Accessed November 28, 2012];Cancer Treatment Plan and Summary Resources. http://www.asco.org/ascov2/Practice+&+Guidelines/Quality+Care/Quality+Measurement+&+Improvement/Chemotherapy+Treatment+Plan+and+Summary/Cancer+Treatment+Plan+and+Summary+Resources.
- 54.ASCO Cancer Treatment Summaries. http://www.cancer.net/patient/Survivorship/ASCO+Cancer+Treatment+Summaries.
- 55.Mayer DK, Gerstel A, Leak AN, Smith SK. Patient and provider preferences for survivorship care plans. J Oncol Pract. 2012 Jul;8(4):e80–86. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2011.000401. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Smith SL, Wai ES, Alexander C, Singh-Carlson S. Caring for survivors of breast cancer: perspective of the primary care physician. Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) 2011 Oct;18(5):e218–e226. doi: 10.3747/co.v18i5.793. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Sprague BL, Dittus KL, Pace CM, et al. Patient satisfaction with breast and colorectal cancer survivorship care plans. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2013 Jun;17(3):266–272. doi: 10.1188/13.CJON.17-03AP. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]