Stanton L Gerson1, Kate Shaw2, Louis B Harrison3, Randall F Holcombe4, Laura Hutchins5, Carrie B Lee6, Patrick J Loehrer7, Daniel Mulkerin8, W Thomas Purcell9, Lois Teston10, Louis M Weiner11, George J Weiner12. 1. 1Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio. 2. 2Association of American Cancer Institutes, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 3. 3Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. 4. 4University of Hawaii Cancer Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii. 5. 5UAMS Winthrop P. Rockefeller Cancer Institute, Little Rock, Arkansas. 6. 6UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 7. 7Indiana University Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, Indiana. 8. 8University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, Wisconsin. 9. 9University of Colorado Cancer Center, Denver, Colorado. 10. 10Seidman Cancer Center, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cleveland, Ohio. 11. 11Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC; and. 12. 12Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer care coordination across major academic medical centers and their networks is evolving rapidly, but the spectrum of organizational efforts has not been described. We conducted a mixed-methods survey of leading cancer centers and their networks to document care coordination and identify opportunities to improve geographically dispersed care. METHODS: A mixed-methods survey was sent to 91 cancer centers in the United States and Canada. We analyzed the number and locations of network sites; access to electronic medical records (EMRs); clinical research support and participation at networks; use of patient navigators, care paths, and quality measures; and physician workforce. Responses were collected via Qualtrics software between September 2017 and December 2018. RESULTS: Of the 69 responding cancer centers, 74% were NCI-designated. Eighty-seven percent of respondents were part of a matrix health system, and 13% were freestanding. Fifty-six reported having network sites. Forty-three respondents use navigators for disease-specific populations, and 24 use them for all patients. Thirty-five respondents use ≥1 types of care path. Fifty-seven percent of networks had complete, integrated access to their main center's EMRs. Thirty-nine respondents said the main center provides funding for clinical research at networks, with 22 reporting the main center provides all funding. Thirty-five said the main center provided pharmacy support at the networks, with 15 indicating the main center provides 100% pharmacy support. Certification program participation varied extensively across networks. CONCLUSIONS: The data show academic cancer centers have extensive involvement in network cancer care, often extending into rural communities. Coordinating care through improved clinical trial access and greater use of patient navigation, care paths, coordinated EMRs, and quality measures is likely to improve patient outcomes. Although it is premature to draw firm conclusions, the survey results are appropriate for mapping next steps and data queries.
BACKGROUND: Cancer care coordination across major academic medical centers and their networks is evolving rapidly, but the spectrum of organizational efforts has not been described. We conducted a mixed-methods survey of leading cancer centers and their networks to document care coordination and identify opportunities to improve geographically dispersed care. METHODS: A mixed-methods survey was sent to 91 cancer centers in the United States and Canada. We analyzed the number and locations of network sites; access to electronic medical records (EMRs); clinical research support and participation at networks; use of patient navigators, care paths, and quality measures; and physician workforce. Responses were collected via Qualtrics software between September 2017 and December 2018. RESULTS: Of the 69 responding cancer centers, 74% were NCI-designated. Eighty-seven percent of respondents were part of a matrix health system, and 13% were freestanding. Fifty-six reported having network sites. Forty-three respondents use navigators for disease-specific populations, and 24 use them for all patients. Thirty-five respondents use ≥1 types of care path. Fifty-seven percent of networks had complete, integrated access to their main center's EMRs. Thirty-nine respondents said the main center provides funding for clinical research at networks, with 22 reporting the main center provides all funding. Thirty-five said the main center provided pharmacy support at the networks, with 15 indicating the main center provides 100% pharmacy support. Certification program participation varied extensively across networks. CONCLUSIONS: The data show academic cancer centers have extensive involvement in network cancer care, often extending into rural communities. Coordinating care through improved clinical trial access and greater use of patient navigation, care paths, coordinated EMRs, and quality measures is likely to improve patient outcomes. Although it is premature to draw firm conclusions, the survey results are appropriate for mapping next steps and data queries.
Authors: Kurt M Ribisl; Maria E Fernandez; Daniela B Friedman; Peggy A Hannon; Jennifer Leeman; Alexis Moore; Lindsay Olson; Marcia Ory; Betsy Risendal; Laura Sheble; Vicky M Taylor; Rebecca S Williams; Bryan J Weiner Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Robin T Zon; Stephen B Edge; Ray D Page; James N Frame; Gary H Lyman; James L Omel; Dana S Wollins; Sybil R Green; Linda D Bosserman Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Bobby Daly; Robin T Zon; Ray D Page; Stephen B Edge; Gary H Lyman; Sybil R Green; Dana S Wollins; Linda D Bosserman Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2018-02-07 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Gabrielle B Rocque; Courtney P Williams; Amanda R Hathaway; Karina I Halilova; Carrie T Stricker; Nicholas C Coombs; William N Dudley; Kathryn A Thomas; Michele Gaguski; Stéphanie Crist; Mary May Kozlik; Patti Larkin; Austin Cadden; Meredith I Jones Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Katherine S Chen; Scott M Glaser; Allison E Garda; John A Vargo; M Saiful Huq; Dwight E Heron; Sushil Beriwal Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-03-16 Impact factor: 3.481