Bridget F Koontz1, Rashmi Benda2, Jennifer De Los Santos3, Karen E Hoffman4, M Saiful Huq5, Rosalyn Morrell6, Amber Sims7, Stephanie Stevens8, James B Yu9, Ronald C Chen10. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: bridget.koontz@duke.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology Lynn Cancer Institute at Boca Raton Regional Hospital, Boca Raton, Florida. 3. University of Alabama at Birmingham, The Kirklin Clinic at Acton Road and Comprehensive Cancer Center, Birmingham, Alabama. 4. The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, and UPMC Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 6. Advanced Radiation Center of Beverly Hills, Beverly Hills, California. 7. American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation, Alexandria, Virginia. 8. American Society for Radiation Oncology, Fairfax, Virginia. 9. Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. 10. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Increasing numbers of cancer survivors have driven a greater focus on care of cancer patients after treatment. Radiation oncologists have long considered follow-up of patients an integral part of practice. We sought to document current survivor-focused care patterns and identify barriers to meeting new regulatory commission guidelines for survivorship care plans (SCPs) and provide guidance for survivorship care. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 23-question electronic survey was e-mailed to all practicing US physician American Society of Radiation Oncology members. Responses were collected for 25 days in March 2014. Survey data were descriptively analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 574 eligible providers responded, for a response percentage of 14.7%. Almost all providers follow their patients after treatment (97%). Length of follow-up was frequently extensive: 17% followed up to 2 years, 40% for 3-5 years, 12% for 6-10 years, and 31% indefinitely. Ancillary services, particularly social work and nutrition services, are commonly available onsite to patients in follow-up. Fewer than half of respondents (40%) indicated that they currently use SCPs for curative intent patients and those who do generally use internally developed templates. SCPs typically go to patients (91%), but infrequently to primary care providers (22%). The top 3 barriers to implementation of SCPs were cost (57%), duplicative survivorship care plans provided by other physicians (43%), and lack of consensus or professional guidelines (40%). Eighty-seven percent indicated that SCPs built into an electronic medical record system would be useful. CONCLUSIONS: A significant part of radiation oncology practice includes the care of those in the surveillance of follow-up phase of care. SCPs may be beneficial in improving communication with the patient and other care but are not widely used within our field. This survey identified key barriers to use of SCPs and provides specialty guidance for important information to be included in a radiation oncology oriented SCP.
PURPOSE: Increasing numbers of cancer survivors have driven a greater focus on care of cancerpatients after treatment. Radiation oncologists have long considered follow-up of patients an integral part of practice. We sought to document current survivor-focused care patterns and identify barriers to meeting new regulatory commission guidelines for survivorship care plans (SCPs) and provide guidance for survivorship care. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 23-question electronic survey was e-mailed to all practicing US physician American Society of Radiation Oncology members. Responses were collected for 25 days in March 2014. Survey data were descriptively analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 574 eligible providers responded, for a response percentage of 14.7%. Almost all providers follow their patients after treatment (97%). Length of follow-up was frequently extensive: 17% followed up to 2 years, 40% for 3-5 years, 12% for 6-10 years, and 31% indefinitely. Ancillary services, particularly social work and nutrition services, are commonly available onsite to patients in follow-up. Fewer than half of respondents (40%) indicated that they currently use SCPs for curative intent patients and those who do generally use internally developed templates. SCPs typically go to patients (91%), but infrequently to primary care providers (22%). The top 3 barriers to implementation of SCPs were cost (57%), duplicative survivorship care plans provided by other physicians (43%), and lack of consensus or professional guidelines (40%). Eighty-seven percent indicated that SCPs built into an electronic medical record system would be useful. CONCLUSIONS: A significant part of radiation oncology practice includes the care of those in the surveillance of follow-up phase of care. SCPs may be beneficial in improving communication with the patient and other care but are not widely used within our field. This survey identified key barriers to use of SCPs and provides specialty guidance for important information to be included in a radiation oncology oriented SCP.
Authors: Daniel Hong; Lauren C Das; Ellen Daily; Stacie K Levine; Olwen M Hahn; Stanley L Liauw; Daniel W Golden; Christina H Son Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Ksenya Shliakhtsitsava; Sally A D Romero; Brian W Whitcomb; Jessica R Gorman; Samantha Roberts; H Irene Su Journal: J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol Date: 2017-07-21 Impact factor: 2.223
Authors: Haley K Perlow; Stephen J Ramey; Vincent Cassidy; Deukwoo Kwon; Benjamin Farnia; Elizabeth Nicolli; Michael A Samuels; Laura Freedman; Nagy Elsayyad; Raphael Yechieli; Stuart E Samuels Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2018-12-24 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Randy L Wei; Malcolm D Mattes; James Yu; Adrienne Thrasher; Hui-Kuo Shu; Harald Paganetti; Jennifer De Los Santos; Bridget Koontz; Christopher Abraham; Tracy Balboni Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2016-09-07
Authors: Mallory G Cases; Andrew D Frugé; Jennifer F De Los Santos; Julie L Locher; Alan B Cantor; Kerry P Smith; Tony A Glover; Harvey J Cohen; Michael Daniel; Casey D Morrow; Douglas R Moellering; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2016-08-23 Impact factor: 2.226