Edward H Wagner1, Evette J Ludman, Erin J Aiello Bowles, Robert Penfold, Robert J Reid, Carolyn M Rutter, Jessica Chubak, Ruth McCorkle. 1. Edward H. Wagner, MacColl Center for Health Care Innovation; Edward H. Wagner, Evette J. Ludman, Erin J. Aiello Bowles, Robert Penfold, Robert J. Reid, Carolyn M. Rutter, and Jessica Chubak, Group Health Research Institute; Robert Penfold and Jessica Chubak, University of Washington; Robert J. Reid, Group Health Permanente, Seattle, WA; and Ruth McCorkle, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether a nurse navigator intervention improves quality of lifeand patient experience with care for people recently given a diagnosis of breast, colorectal, or lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adults with recently diagnosed primary breast, colorectal, or lung cancer (n = 251) received either enhanced usual care (n = 118) or nurse navigator support for 4 months (n = 133) in a two-group cluster randomized, controlled trial with primary care physicians as the units of randomization. Patient-reported measures included the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) Quality of Life scale, three subscales of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC), and selected subscales from a cancer adaptation of the Picker Institute's patient experience survey. Self-report measures were collected at baseline, 4 months, and 12 months. Automated administrative data were used to assess time to treatment and total health care costs. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between groups in FACT-G scores. Nurse navigator patients reported significantly higher scores on the PACIC and reported significantly fewer problems with care, especially psychosocial care, care coordination, and information, as measured by the Picker instrument. Cumulative costs after diagnosis did not differ significantly between groups, but lung cancer costs were $6,852 less among nurse navigator patients. CONCLUSION: Compared with enhanced usual care, nurse navigator support for patients with cancer early in their course improves patient experience and reduces problems in care, but did not differentially affect quality of life.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To determine whether a nurse navigator intervention improves quality of life and patient experience with care for people recently given a diagnosis of breast, colorectal, or lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adults with recently diagnosed primary breast, colorectal, or lung cancer (n = 251) received either enhanced usual care (n = 118) or nurse navigator support for 4 months (n = 133) in a two-group cluster randomized, controlled trial with primary care physicians as the units of randomization. Patient-reported measures included the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) Quality of Life scale, three subscales of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC), and selected subscales from a cancer adaptation of the Picker Institute's patient experience survey. Self-report measures were collected at baseline, 4 months, and 12 months. Automated administrative data were used to assess time to treatment and total health care costs. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between groups in FACT-G scores. Nurse navigator patients reported significantly higher scores on the PACIC and reported significantly fewer problems with care, especially psychosocial care, care coordination, and information, as measured by the Picker instrument. Cumulative costs after diagnosis did not differ significantly between groups, but lung cancer costs were $6,852 less among nurse navigator patients. CONCLUSION: Compared with enhanced usual care, nurse navigator support for patients with cancer early in their course improves patient experience and reduces problems in care, but did not differentially affect quality of life.
Authors: Edward H Wagner; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Sarah M Greene; Leah Tuzzio; Cheryl J Wiese; Beth Kirlin; Steven B Clauser Journal: Qual Saf Health Care Date: 2010-12
Authors: Kevin Fiscella; Elizabeth Whitley; Samantha Hendren; Peter Raich; Sharon Humiston; Paul Winters; Pascal Jean-Pierre; Patricia Valverde; William Thorland; Ronald Epstein Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Lise Fillion; Sandra Cook; Anne-Marie Veillette; Marie de Serres; Michèle Aubin; François Rainville; Margaret Fitch; Richard Doll Journal: Can Oncol Nurs J Date: 2012
Authors: Thomas J Roberts; Inga T Lennes; Saif Hawari; Lecia V Sequist; Elyse R Park; Henning Willers; Angela Frank; Henning Gaissert; Jo-Anne Shepard; David Ryan Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-12-26
Authors: Jonathan Sussman; Daryl Bainbridge; Timothy J Whelan; Kevin Brazil; Sameer Parpia; Jennifer Wiernikowski; Susan Schiff; Gary Rodin; Myles Sergeant; Doris Howell Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-11-30 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Gabrielle B Rocque; Edward E Partridge; Maria Pisu; Michelle Y Martin; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Aras Acemgil; Kelly Kenzik; Elizabeth A Kvale; Karen Meneses; Xuelin Li; Yufeng Li; Karina I Halilova; Bradford E Jackson; Carol Chambless; Nedra Lisovicz; Mona Fouad; Richard A Taylor Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-05-10 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Gabrielle B Rocque; Richard A Taylor; Aras Acemgil; Xuelin Li; Maria Pisu; Kelly Kenzik; Bradford E Jackson; Karina I Halilova; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Karen Meneses; Yufeng Li; Michelle Y Martin; Carol Chambless; Nedra Lisovicz; Mona Fouad; Edward E Partridge; Elizabeth A Kvale Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Horia Vulpe; Janet Ellis; Shao Hui Huang; Eshetu G Atenafu; Raymond W Jang; Gary Rodin; Jolie Ringash Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-11-04 Impact factor: 3.603