David A Haggstrom1, Neeraj K Arora, Paul Helft, Marla L Clayman, Ingrid Oakley-Girvan. 1. VA Health Services Research & Development (HSR&D) Center on Implementing Evidence-based Practice (CIEBP), Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center, 1481 West 10th St. (11H), Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA. dahaggst@iupui.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Institute of Medicine has identified patients as a key source of information for assessing the quality of care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of physician specialty with the content and quality of follow-up cancer care. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred three colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors in Northern California were surveyed 2-5 years post-diagnosis. MEASUREMENTS: Specialty of physician seen most often [primary care physician (PCP), oncologist, surgeon, or gastroenterologist]; other physician specialties seen; patient characteristics; content of visits; patient-centered quality of follow-up care (communication, coordination, nursing, and staff interactions). MAIN RESULTS: A minority (16%) of CRC survivors reported that the doctor they most often saw for follow-up cancer care was a PCP, while 60% saw an oncologist. Many CRC survivors (40%) saw >1 physician for follow-up cancer care. Survivors most often seen by PCPs were more likely to have three or more medical comorbidities (70% vs. 51%, p = 0.012) than survivors seen by subspecialty physicians. Survivors seen by PCPs were less likely to report seeing a doctor for medical tests and more likely to report discussing disease prevention (82% vs. 64%, p = 0.012) or diet (70% vs. 48%, p = 0.005) with their doctor. There were no significant specialty differences in patient-centered quality of follow-up cancer care. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer survivors' assessment of the quality of care was similar across specialties, while the content of follow-up cancer care varied by physician specialty. These findings provide important information about the potential value of primary care and the need for coordination when delivering care to CRC survivors.
BACKGROUND: The Institute of Medicine has identified patients as a key source of information for assessing the quality of care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of physician specialty with the content and quality of follow-up cancer care. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred three colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors in Northern California were surveyed 2-5 years post-diagnosis. MEASUREMENTS: Specialty of physician seen most often [primary care physician (PCP), oncologist, surgeon, or gastroenterologist]; other physician specialties seen; patient characteristics; content of visits; patient-centered quality of follow-up care (communication, coordination, nursing, and staff interactions). MAIN RESULTS: A minority (16%) of CRC survivors reported that the doctor they most often saw for follow-up cancer care was a PCP, while 60% saw an oncologist. Many CRC survivors (40%) saw >1 physician for follow-up cancer care. Survivors most often seen by PCPs were more likely to have three or more medical comorbidities (70% vs. 51%, p = 0.012) than survivors seen by subspecialty physicians. Survivors seen by PCPs were less likely to report seeing a doctor for medical tests and more likely to report discussing disease prevention (82% vs. 64%, p = 0.012) or diet (70% vs. 48%, p = 0.005) with their doctor. There were no significant specialty differences in patient-centered quality of follow-up cancer care. CONCLUSIONS:Cancer survivors' assessment of the quality of care was similar across specialties, while the content of follow-up cancer care varied by physician specialty. These findings provide important information about the potential value of primary care and the need for coordination when delivering care to CRC survivors.
Authors: R D Hays; J A Shaul; V S Williams; J S Lubalin; L D Harris-Kojetin; S F Sweeny; P D Cleary Journal: Med Care Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: John Z Ayanian; Alan M Zaslavsky; Edward Guadagnoli; Charles S Fuchs; Kathleen J Yost; Cynthia M Creech; Rosemary D Cress; Lilia C O'Connor; Dee W West; William E Wright Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-08-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Christopher E Desch; Al B Benson; Mark R Somerfield; Patrick J Flynn; Carol Krause; Charles L Loprinzi; Bruce D Minsky; David G Pfister; Katherine S Virgo; Nicholas J Petrelli Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: E Grunfeld; R Fitzpatrick; D Mant; P Yudkin; R Adewuyi-Dalton; J Stewart; D Cole; M Vessey Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Jana E Montgomery; Julie T Irish; Ira B Wilson; Hong Chang; Angela C Li; William H Rogers; Dana Gelb Safran Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: K S Courneya; C M Friedenreich; H A Quinney; A L A Fields; L W Jones; A S Fairey Journal: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 2.520
Authors: Kevin M Gorey; Isaac N Luginaah; Emma Bartfay; Karen Y Fung; Eric J Holowaty; Frances C Wright; Caroline Hamm; Sindu M Kanjeekal; Madhan K Balagurusamy Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2010-06-03 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Nynikka R A Palmer; Erin E Kent; Laura P Forsythe; Neeraj K Arora; Julia H Rowland; Noreen M Aziz; Danielle Blanch-Hartigan; Ingrid Oakley-Girvan; Ann S Hamilton; Kathryn E Weaver Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-11-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kathryn E Weaver; Randi E Foraker; Catherine M Alfano; Julia H Rowland; Neeraj K Arora; Keith M Bellizzi; Ann S Hamilton; Ingrid Oakley-Girvan; Gretchen Keel; Noreen M Aziz Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2013-02-16 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Laura P Forsythe; Neeraj K Arora; Catherine M Alfano; Kathryn E Weaver; Ann S Hamilton; Noreen Aziz; Julia H Rowland Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-01-12 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Neeraj K Arora; Bryce B Reeve; Ron D Hays; Steven B Clauser; Ingrid Oakley-Girvan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-02-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Melissa Y Carpentier; Sally W Vernon; L Kay Bartholomew; Caitlin C Murphy; Shirley M Bluethmann Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2013-05-16 Impact factor: 4.442