Teresa L Rutledge1, Miria Kano2, Dolores Guest2, Andrew Sussman3, Anita Y Kinney4. 1. University of New Mexico, University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, United States. Electronic address: trutledge@salud.unm.edu. 2. University of New Mexico, University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cancer Research and Treatment Center Population Science Academic Unit, United States. 3. University of New Mexico, Department of Family and Community Medicine, United States. 4. University of New Mexico, Department of Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study describes patient and provider attitudes on transitioning cancer surveillance visits and treatment of comorbid conditions to the primary care setting in a rural patient population as a strategy for minimizing financial and travel related barriers for patients while simultaneously enhancing quality and availability of health care options. METHODS: Focus group discussions and telephone interviews were conducted with endometrial cancer (EC) survivors and primary care providers (PCPs) to provide insights into post-treatment follow-up practices and the acceptability of transitioning follow-up to primary care setting utilizing a cancer survivorship care plan model. RESULTS: EC survivors expressed high levels of satisfaction with their oncology care and suggested that transitioning to PCPs for follow-up care would be convenient yet challenging. Challenges cited include: 1) patient perceptions of deficits in PCP's understandings of cancer surveillance; 2) inability to identify a personal PCP; and 3) lack of communication between oncologists and PCPs. PCP participants similarly identified the need for extensive EC training and effective communication strategies with oncologists as necessary factors for accepting responsibility for EC follow-up care. Both groups offered strategies to create a more team based approach to EC survivorship care. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing the role of the PCP in the ongoing care of EC survivors was generally considered acceptable by both patients and providers in both rural and urban women. Successful coordination of care between cancer survivors, oncologists and PCPs will be a critical step in improving the cancer care delivery of our rural patient and provider population.
OBJECTIVES: This study describes patient and provider attitudes on transitioning cancer surveillance visits and treatment of comorbid conditions to the primary care setting in a rural patient population as a strategy for minimizing financial and travel related barriers for patients while simultaneously enhancing quality and availability of health care options. METHODS: Focus group discussions and telephone interviews were conducted with endometrial cancer (EC) survivors and primary care providers (PCPs) to provide insights into post-treatment follow-up practices and the acceptability of transitioning follow-up to primary care setting utilizing a cancer survivorship care plan model. RESULTS: EC survivors expressed high levels of satisfaction with their oncology care and suggested that transitioning to PCPs for follow-up care would be convenient yet challenging. Challenges cited include: 1) patient perceptions of deficits in PCP's understandings of cancer surveillance; 2) inability to identify a personal PCP; and 3) lack of communication between oncologists and PCPs. PCPparticipants similarly identified the need for extensive EC training and effective communication strategies with oncologists as necessary factors for accepting responsibility for EC follow-up care. Both groups offered strategies to create a more team based approach to EC survivorship care. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing the role of the PCP in the ongoing care of EC survivors was generally considered acceptable by both patients and providers in both rural and urban women. Successful coordination of care between cancer survivors, oncologists and PCPs will be a critical step in improving the cancer care delivery of our rural patient and provider population.
Authors: Marquita W Lewis-Thames; Leslie R Carnahan; Aimee S James; Karriem S Watson; Yamilé Molina Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2020-01-11 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Jean A McDougall; Matthew P Banegas; Charles L Wiggins; Vi K Chiu; Ashwani Rajput; Anita Y Kinney Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2018-03-28 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Charlotte IJsbrandy; Rosella P M G Hermens; Laura W M Boerboom; Winald R Gerritsen; Wim H van Harten; Petronella B Ottevanger Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2019-07-25 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Karely Mann; Yelena P Wu; Samantha T Pannier; Claire Hacking; Echo L Warner; Stephanie Rosen; Akanksha Acharya; Jennifer Wright; Cheryl Gerdy; Anne C Kirchhoff Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-05-21 Impact factor: 3.603