Teresa Deshields1, Amanda Kracen1, Shannon Nanna2, Lisa Kimbro3. 1. Siteman Cancer Center, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 2. American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine, Cupecoy, St. Maarten, Netherlands Antilles. 3. National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Fort Washington, PA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) is comprised of 25 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers and arguably could thus set the standard for optimal psychosocial staffing for cancer centers; therefore, information was sought from NCCN Member Institutions about their current staffing for psychosocial services. These findings are put into perspective given the limited existing literature and consensus reports. METHODS: The NCCN Best Practices Committee surveyed member institutions about their staffing for psychosocial services. The survey was administered electronically in the winter of 2012. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 20 cancer centers. Across institutions, case managers and mental health therapists, typically social workers, were utilized most frequently to provide psychosocial services (67% of full-time-equivalents (FTEs)), with other psychosocial professionals also represented but less consistently. Most psychosocial services are institutionally funded (ranging from 64 to 100%), although additional sources of support include fee for service and grant funding. Training of psychosocial providers is unevenly distributed across responding sites, ranging from 92% of institutions having training programs for psychiatrists to 36% having training programs for mental health therapists. CONCLUSIONS: There was variability among the institutions in terms of patient volume, psychosocial services provided, and psychosocial staff employed. As accreditation standards are implemented that provide impetus for psychosocial services in oncology, it is hoped that greater clarity will develop concerning staffing for psychosocial services and uptake of these services by patients with cancer.
OBJECTIVE: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) is comprised of 25 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers and arguably could thus set the standard for optimal psychosocial staffing for cancer centers; therefore, information was sought from NCCN Member Institutions about their current staffing for psychosocial services. These findings are put into perspective given the limited existing literature and consensus reports. METHODS: The NCCN Best Practices Committee surveyed member institutions about their staffing for psychosocial services. The survey was administered electronically in the winter of 2012. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 20 cancer centers. Across institutions, case managers and mental health therapists, typically social workers, were utilized most frequently to provide psychosocial services (67% of full-time-equivalents (FTEs)), with other psychosocial professionals also represented but less consistently. Most psychosocial services are institutionally funded (ranging from 64 to 100%), although additional sources of support include fee for service and grant funding. Training of psychosocial providers is unevenly distributed across responding sites, ranging from 92% of institutions having training programs for psychiatrists to 36% having training programs for mental health therapists. CONCLUSIONS: There was variability among the institutions in terms of patient volume, psychosocial services provided, and psychosocial staff employed. As accreditation standards are implemented that provide impetus for psychosocial services in oncology, it is hoped that greater clarity will develop concerning staffing for psychosocial services and uptake of these services by patients with cancer.
Authors: Michelle B Riba; Kristine A Donovan; Barbara Andersen; IIana Braun; William S Breitbart; Benjamin W Brewer; Luke O Buchmann; Matthew M Clark; Molly Collins; Cheyenne Corbett; Stewart Fleishman; Sofia Garcia; Donna B Greenberg; Rev George F Handzo; Laura Hoofring; Chao-Hui Huang; Robin Lally; Sara Martin; Lisa McGuffey; William Mitchell; Laura J Morrison; Megan Pailler; Oxana Palesh; Francine Parnes; Janice P Pazar; Laurel Ralston; Jaroslava Salman; Moreen M Shannon-Dudley; Alan D Valentine; Nicole R McMillian; Susan D Darlow Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Kelly M Trevino; Charlotte Healy; Peter Martin; Beverly Canin; Karl Pillemer; Jo Anne Sirey; M Cary Reid Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: William F Pirl; Joseph A Greer; Sharla Wells-Di Gregorio; Teresa Deshields; Scott Irwin; Karen Fasciano; Lori Wiener; Tiffany Courtnage; Lynne S Padgett; Jesse R Fann Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2020-05-26 Impact factor: 3.955