BACKGROUND: Research has demonstrated that communication and care coordination improve cancer patient outcomes. To improve communication and care coordination, it is important to understand primary care providers' (PCPs') perceptions of communication with oncologists as well as PCPs' communication needs. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was used in the present study. In the qualitative phase of the study, 18 PCPs practicing in underserved, minority communities were interviewed about their experiences communicating with oncologists. In the quantitative phase of the study, 128 PCPs completed an online survey about their preferences, experiences, and satisfaction with communication with oncologists. RESULTS: Results indicated a PCP-oncologist gap in communication occurred between diagnosis and treatment. PCPs wanted more communication with oncologists, updates on their patients' prognosis throughout treatment, and to be contacted via telephone or email and saw their role as crucial in providing supportive care for their patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although PCPs recognize that they play a critical, proactive role in supporting patients throughout the continuum of their cancer care experience, existing norms regarding postreferral engagement and oncologist-PCP communication often hinder activation of this role among PCPs. Expected standards regarding the method, frequency, and quality of postreferral communication should be jointly articulated and made accountable between PCPs and oncologists to help improve cancer patients' quality of care, particularly in minority communities.
BACKGROUND: Research has demonstrated that communication and care coordination improve cancer patient outcomes. To improve communication and care coordination, it is important to understand primary care providers' (PCPs') perceptions of communication with oncologists as well as PCPs' communication needs. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was used in the present study. In the qualitative phase of the study, 18 PCPs practicing in underserved, minority communities were interviewed about their experiences communicating with oncologists. In the quantitative phase of the study, 128 PCPs completed an online survey about their preferences, experiences, and satisfaction with communication with oncologists. RESULTS: Results indicated a PCP-oncologist gap in communication occurred between diagnosis and treatment. PCPs wanted more communication with oncologists, updates on their patients' prognosis throughout treatment, and to be contacted via telephone or email and saw their role as crucial in providing supportive care for their patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although PCPs recognize that they play a critical, proactive role in supporting patients throughout the continuum of their cancer care experience, existing norms regarding postreferral engagement and oncologist-PCP communication often hinder activation of this role among PCPs. Expected standards regarding the method, frequency, and quality of postreferral communication should be jointly articulated and made accountable between PCPs and oncologists to help improve cancer patients' quality of care, particularly in minority communities.
Authors: Arnold L Potosky; Paul K J Han; Julia Rowland; Carrie N Klabunde; Tenbroeck Smith; Noreen Aziz; Craig Earle; John Z Ayanian; Patricia A Ganz; Michael Stefanek Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-07-22 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Claire F Snyder; Sydney M Dy; Danetta E Hendricks; Julie R Brahmer; Michael A Carducci; Antonio C Wolff; Albert W Wu Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2007-02-21 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Margo Michaels; Thomas A D'Agostino; Natasha Blakeney; Elisa S Weiss; Maria C Binz-Scharf; Mitch Golant; Carma L Bylund Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: David A Haggstrom; Neeraj K Arora; Paul Helft; Marla L Clayman; Ingrid Oakley-Girvan Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Winson Y Cheung; Bridget A Neville; Danielle B Cameron; E Francis Cook; Craig C Earle Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-03-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Julie Easley; Baukje Miedema; June C Carroll; Donna P Manca; Mary Ann O'Brien; Fiona Webster; Eva Grunfeld Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Jessica L Krok-Schoen; Jennifer DeSalvo; Dori Klemanski; Christian Stephens; Anne M Noonan; Seuli Brill; Maryam B Lustberg Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-05-22 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Carma L Bylund; Elisa S Weiss; Margo Michaels; Shilpa Patel; Thomas A D'Agostino; Emily B Peterson; Maria Christina Binz-Scharf; Natasha Blakeney; M Diane McKee Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2017-07-11 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Lesly A Dossett; Janella N Hudson; Arden M Morris; M Catherine Lee; Richard G Roetzheim; Michael D Fetters; Gwendolyn P Quinn Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Madeleine Love; Marc Debay; Anne Charity Hudley; Todd Sorsby; Linda Lucero; Stuart Miller; Sagus Sampath; Arya Amini; Dan Raz; Jae Kim; Ranjan Pathak; Yi-Jen Chen; Andreas Kaiser; Kurt Melstrom; Marwan Fakih; Virginia Sun Journal: J Prim Care Community Health Date: 2022 Jan-Dec
Authors: Simon J Craddock Lee; Mark A Clark; John V Cox; Burton M Needles; Carole Seigel; Bijal A Balasubramanian Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-10-31 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Amye J Tevaarwerk; Jennifer R Klemp; Gijsberta J van Londen; Bradford W Hesse; Mary E Sesto Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Simon J Craddock Lee; Torsten Reimer; Sandra Garcia; Erin L Williams; Mary West; Tobi Stuart; David E Gerber Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2019-10-07