Ariana Thompson-Lastad1, Chloe E Atreya2,3, Maria T Chao1,4, Christine Pollak3, Anand Dhruva1,2,3, Trilce Santana1, Donald I Abrams1. 1. 1Osher Center for Integrative Medicine, UC San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 2. 2Divisions of Hematology/Oncology UC San Francisco Department of Internal Medicine, San Francisco, CA. 3. 3Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, UC San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 4. 4Divisions of General Internal Medicine, UC San Francisco Department of Internal Medicine, San Francisco, CA.
Abstract
Objectives: This article describes the implementation of a group medical visit (GMV) model to increase access to integrative oncology (IO) care. The most challenging and critical time to access high-quality IO care is while patients are receiving conventional cancer therapy. Often demand for individual IO clinic consultations precludes this from occurring. A three-session GMV program was designed to alleviate barriers to receiving integrative care during active cancer treatment. Design: A consolidated framework was used for implementation research and focused ethnography methods to describe the IO GMV implementation process. Data sources included patient evaluations, participant observation, and brief provider and patient interviews. Setting: A pilot program was created to assess the feasibility and acceptability of implementing IO GMVs at a comprehensive cancer center. Intervention: Each three-session GMV consisted of a didactic session, followed by individual visits with the integrative oncologist. Results: The setting, intervention, and implementation process of the IO GMV program were described. Thirty-two patients participated in the first five cohorts of the program. Twenty-two were women; 24 were White. The median age of participants was 52. Patient evaluations demonstrate high levels of satisfaction with the program with all scored aspects rated >4.0 on a five-point Likert scale. For the medical center, group visits are a financially viable alternative to individual IO visits; revenue from group visits exceeded the revenue potential of 6 h of individual visits by an average of 38%. Conclusion: GMVs are a feasible and promising model for increasing access to IO. Patients in active cancer treatment were able to participate in the program. Future research and implementation efforts could examine health outcomes over time after participation in GMVs, as well as the feasibility of using this model with more diverse patient populations.
Objectives: This article describes the implementation of a group medical visit (GMV) model to increase access to integrative oncology (IO) care. The most challenging and critical time to access high-quality IO care is while patients are receiving conventional cancer therapy. Often demand for individual IO clinic consultations precludes this from occurring. A three-session GMV program was designed to alleviate barriers to receiving integrative care during active cancer treatment. Design: A consolidated framework was used for implementation research and focused ethnography methods to describe the IO GMV implementation process. Data sources included patient evaluations, participant observation, and brief provider and patient interviews. Setting: A pilot program was created to assess the feasibility and acceptability of implementing IO GMVs at a comprehensive cancer center. Intervention: Each three-session GMV consisted of a didactic session, followed by individual visits with the integrative oncologist. Results: The setting, intervention, and implementation process of the IO GMV program were described. Thirty-two patients participated in the first five cohorts of the program. Twenty-two were women; 24 were White. The median age of participants was 52. Patient evaluations demonstrate high levels of satisfaction with the program with all scored aspects rated >4.0 on a five-point Likert scale. For the medical center, group visits are a financially viable alternative to individual IO visits; revenue from group visits exceeded the revenue potential of 6 h of individual visits by an average of 38%. Conclusion:GMVs are a feasible and promising model for increasing access to IO. Patients in active cancer treatment were able to participate in the program. Future research and implementation efforts could examine health outcomes over time after participation in GMVs, as well as the feasibility of using this model with more diverse patient populations.
Entities:
Keywords:
access to care; group medical visits; integrative medicine; integrative oncology; quality improvement
Authors: Jennifer S Yates; Karen M Mustian; Gary R Morrow; Leslie J Gillies; Devi Padmanaban; James N Atkins; Brian Issell; Jeffrey J Kirshner; Lauren K Colman Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2005-02-15 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Kathie Culhane-Pera; Kevin A Peterson; A Lauren Crain; Bruce A Center; Mayseng Lee; Bee Her; Tely Xiong Journal: J Health Care Poor Underserved Date: 2005-05
Authors: Laura J Damschroder; David C Aron; Rosalind E Keith; Susan R Kirsh; Jeffery A Alexander; Julie C Lowery Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2009-08-07 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Dawn E Clancy; Clara E Dismuke; Kathryn Marley Magruder; Kit N Simpson; David Bradford Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Donald I Abrams; Rowena Dolor; Rhonda Roberts; Constance Pechura; Jeffery Dusek; Sandi Amoils; Steven Amoils; Kevin Barrows; Joel S Edman; Joyce Frye; Erminia Guarneri; Ben Kligler; Daniel Monti; Myles Spar; Ruth Q Wolever Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med Date: 2013-06-24 Impact factor: 3.659
Authors: Hannah M Dragomanovich; Anand Dhruva; Eve Ekman; Kelly L Schoenbeck; Ai Kubo; Erin L Van Blarigan; Hala T Borno; Mikaela Esquivel; Bryant Chee; Matthew Campanella; Errol J Philip; John P Rettger; Blake Rosenthal; Katherine Van Loon; Alan P Venook; Christy Boscardin; Patricia Moran; Frederick M Hecht; Chloe E Atreya Journal: Glob Adv Health Med Date: 2021-11-03