Utilization of a primary care-based cancer survivorship clinic: patterns and patient characteristics.

PURPOSE: The Johns Hopkins Primary Care for Cancer Survivors (PCCS) Clinic was established in 2015 to improve care delivery for the growing cancer survivor population. We aim to describe areas of care addressed by PCCS and factors associated with clinic utilization. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of the first 301 patients' clinic visits. We used negative binomial regression models to identify factors associated with the rate of PCCS clinic visits overall and for cancer surveillance and treatment-related effects. RESULTS: There were 1702 clinic visits across 301 patients during the study period (77% female, median age 61). The most common areas of care addressed were chronic medical problems (80%), preventive health care (62%), cancer surveillance (59%), treatment-related effects (50%), and new/acute problems (46%). Multivariate analyses found that age > 60 years (IRR = 1.9, 95% CI = 1.2-3.0, p = 0.007) and higher number of comorbidities (IRR = 1.2, 95% CI = 1.1 - 1.2, p < 0.001) were associated with more overall PCCS visits, while female gender was associated with fewer visits (IRR = 0.6, CI = 0.4 - 0.8, p = 0.001). Gastrointestinal cancer type, shorter length of survivorship, male gender, and higher number of comorbidities were associated with a higher rate of visits addressing both surveillance and treatment-related effects (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The PCCS clinic addressed cancer and non-cancer related needs. Older patients and survivors with more comorbidities had significantly increased clinic utilization. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: As the cancer survivor population grows, increasing access to survivorship clinics based in primary care may help meet these patients' diverse oncologic and general health needs.

Evaluating potential overuse of surveillance care in cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Survivorship care plans (SCPs) communicate cancer-related information from oncology providers to patients and primary care providers. SCPs may limit overuse testing by specifying necessary follow-up care. From a randomized, controlled trial of SCP delivery, we examined whether cancer-related tests not specified in SCPs, but conducted after SCP receipt, were appropriate or consistent with overuse. METHODS: Survivors of breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer treated at urban-academic or rural-community health systems were randomized to one of three SCP delivery arms. Tests during 18 months after SCP receipt were classified as consistent with overuse if they were (1) not included in SCPs and (2) on a guideline-based predetermined list of "not recommended surveillance." After chart abstraction, physicians performed review and adjudication of potential overuse. Descriptive analyses were conducted of tests consistent with overuse. Negative binomial regression models determined if testing consistent with overuse differed across study arms. RESULTS: Among 316 patients (137 breast, 67 colorectal, 112 prostate), 140 individual tests were identified as potential overuse. Upon review, 98 were deemed to be consistent with overuse: 78 tumor markers and 20 imaging tests. The majority of overuse testing was breast cancer-related (95%). Across sites, 27 patients (9%) received ≥1 test consistent with overuse; most were breast cancer patients (22/27). Exploratory analyses of overuse test frequency by study arm showed no significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis identified practice patterns consistent with overuse of surveillance testing and can inform efforts to improve guideline-concordant care. Future interventions may include individual practice patterns and provider education.

Optimizing cancer survivorship in primary care: patient experiences from the Johns Hopkins Primary Care for Cancer Survivors clinic.

PURPOSE: The optimal delivery of survivorship care, particularly within primary care, remains poorly understood. We established the Johns Hopkins Primary Care for Cancer Survivors (PCCS) clinic in 2015 to address care challenges unique to cancer survivors. To better understand the care from the PCCS clinic, we interviewed patients about their perception of care delivery, survivorship care, and care coordination. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with adult survivors of any cancer type seen in the PCCS clinic. A priori and in vivo coding of verbatim transcripts was part of the thematic analysis. RESULTS: Seventeen cancer survivors were interviewed (ages 37-78). Themes that emerged were (1) optimal care and (2) the PCCS experience. Subthemes respectively included the ideal role of the primary care provider (1), telehealth/COVID-19 challenges and opportunities (1), patient-derived value from the PCCS clinic (2), and improving the PCCS model (2). Overall, PCCS patients expected and experienced high-quality, comprehensive primary care by providers with cancer survivorship expertise. Patients reported telehealth benefits and challenges for survivorship care during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: PCCS patients perceived receiving high-quality primary care and valued being seen in a primary care-based survivorship clinic. The PCCS clinic can serve as a model of primary care-based cancer survivorship. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Ideal primary care provider roles and care coordination are important factors for high-quality survivorship care and can be provided by a specialized cancer survivorship clinic in primary care.

Cancer Care Continuum Research and Educational Innovation: Are Academic Internists Keeping up with Population Trends?

Academic internists play a unique role in conducting innovative research, developing educational curricula, and influencing policy. As the population of patients living with and beyond cancer is expected to reach 22 million by 2030, it is essential for academic internists to lead innovative research in clinical care and medical education across the cancer care continuum. We characterized cancer-related topics presented at the 2015-2019 annual meetings of the Society of General Internal Medicine, a national organization of over 3,000 academic general internists. We analyzed all scientific (n = 3,437), Innovation in Medical Education (n = 756), and Innovation in Clinical Practice (n = 664) abstracts for content across the cancer continuum: prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, and palliative/end-of-life care (P/EOL). Of 3,437 scientific abstracts, 304 (8.8%) related to cancer. Prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, and P/EOL were addressed in 52 (17.1%), 145 (47.7%), 18 (5.9%), 57 (18.8%), 12 (4.0%), and 29 (9.5%) of scientific abstracts, respectively. Some addressed multiple phases, and 6 were classified as "other." Breast (mean = 18.2, SD = 4.66), colorectal (mean = 12.8, SD = 3.11), and lung (mean = 8.2, SD = 2.29) cancers were most presented in scientific abstracts per year. Five (0.66%) of the 756 Innovation in Medical Education abstracts and 41 (6.2%) of the 665 Innovation in Clinical Practice abstracts addressed cancer. Similarly, they primarily focused on screening and prevention. To lead innovation in clinical care, education, and policy across the cancer continuum and prepare the future workforce, academic internists should expand their focus to later phases, particularly survivorship and P/EOL.

Preparing Future Medicine Physicians to Care for Cancer Survivors: Project ECHO® in a Novel Internal Medicine and Family Medicine Residency Curriculum.

Cancer survivorship education is limited in residency training. The goal of this pilot curriculum was to teach medicine residents a structured approach to cancer survivorship care. During the 2020-2021 academic year, we held eight 45-min sessions in an ambulatory noon conference series for a community family medicine (FM) and internal medicine (IM) residency program. The curriculum used Project ECHO®, an interactive model of tele-education through Zoom video conferencing, to connect trainees with specialists. Each session had a cancer-specific focus (e.g., breast cancer survivorship) and incorporated a range of core survivorship topics (e.g., surveillance, treatment effects). The session format included a resident case presentation and didactic lecture by an expert discussant. Residents completed pre- and post-curricular surveys to assess for changes in attitude, confidence, practice patterns, and/or knowledge in cancer survivorship care. Of 67 residents, 23/24 FM and 41/43 IM residents participated in the curriculum. Residents attended a mean of 3 sessions. By the end of the curriculum, resident confidence in survivorship topics (surveillance, treatment effects, genetic risk assessment) increased for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers (p < 0.05), and there was a trend toward residents stating they ask patients more often about cancer treatment effects (p = 0.07). Over 90% of residents found various curricular components useful, and over 80% reported that the curriculum would improve their practice of cancer-related testing and treatment-related monitoring. On a 15-question post-curricular knowledge check, the mean correct score was 9.4 (63%). An eight-session curriculum improved resident confidence and perceived ability to provide cancer survivorship care.

Realist Review of Care Models That Include Primary Care for Adult Childhood Cancer Survivors.

Appropriate models of survivorship care for the growing number of adult survivors of childhood cancer are unclear. We conducted a realist review to describe how models of care that include primary care and relevant resources (eg, tools, training) could be effective for adult survivors of childhood cancer. We first developed an initial program theory based on qualitative literature (studies, commentaries, opinion pieces) and stakeholder consultations. We then reviewed quantitative evidence and consulted stakeholders to refine the program theory and develop and refine context-mechanism-outcome hypotheses regarding how models of care that include primary care could be effective for adult survivors of childhood cancer. Effectiveness for both resources and models is defined by survivors living longer and feeling better through high-value care. Intermediate measures of effectiveness evaluate the extent to which survivors and providers understand the survivor's history, risks, symptoms and problems, health-care needs, and available resources. Thus, the models of care and resources are intended to provide information to survivors and/or primary care providers to enable them to obtain/deliver appropriate care. The variables from our program theory found most consistently in the literature include oncology vs primary care specialty, survivor and provider knowledge, provider comfort treating childhood cancer survivors, communication and coordination between and among providers and survivors, and delivery/receipt of prevention and surveillance of late effects. In turn, these variables were prominent in our context-mechanism-outcome hypotheses. The findings from this realist review can inform future research to improve childhood cancer survivorship care and outcomes.

Assessment of metabolic risks for non-communicable diseases using Sasang constitution: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sasang constitutional medicine (SCM), which categorizes humans into four Sasang types according to their constitution-specific characteristics, has been identified as being useful in predicting metabolic risks and preventing non-communicable diseases (NCDs). However, no systematic review has evaluated this relationship previously. This study protocol describes a method for evaluating the association between Sasang constitution and the metabolic risk factors for NCDs. METHODS: The following nine academic databases will be used as data sources for entries: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica database, Web of Science, and six Korean databases. All cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies that were published by December 2021 and could explain the association between Sasang constitution and metabolic risk factors for NCDs will be considered eligible. Two independent researchers will select studies, extract data, assess quality of studies, and qualitatively evaluate clinical evidence, subsequently. The quality assessment will be evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, with modifications if necessary. Quantitative data will be synthesized as a random-effects model, if applicable. The strength of clinical evidence will be performed applying the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) or GRADE-Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research approach. DISCUSSION: This study will contribute to helping clinicians and health authorities detect any relevant metabolic risks that patients may have, based on systematic clinical evidence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Review Registry Unique Identifying Number: reviewregistry1213.

Simplifying Survivorship Care Planning: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing 3 Care Plan Delivery Approaches.

BACKGROUND: Survivorship care plans seek to improve the transition to survivorship, but the required resources present implementation barriers. This randomized controlled trial aimed to identify the simplest, most effective approach for survivorship care planning. METHODS: Stage 1-3 breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer patients aged 21 years or older completing treatment were recruited from an urban-academic and rural-community cancer center. Participants were randomly assigned, stratified by recruitment site and cancer type 1:1:1 to a mailed plan, plan delivered during a 1-time transition visit, or plan delivered during a transition visit plus 6-month follow-up visit. Health service use data were collected from participants and medical records for 18 months. The primary outcome, receipt of all plan-recommended care, was compared across intervention arms using logistic regression adjusting for cancer type and recruitment site, with P less than .05 considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Of 378 participants randomly assigned, 159 (42.1%) were breast, 142 (37.6%) prostate, and 77 (20.4%) colorectal cancer survivors; 207 (54.8%) from the academic site and 171 (45.2%) from the community site; 316 were analyzable for the primary outcome. There was no difference across arms in the proportion of participants receiving all plan-recommended care: 45.2% mail, 50.5% 1-visit, 42.7% 2-visit (2-sided P = .60). Adherence by cancer type for mail, 1-visit, and 2-visit, respectively, was 52.2%, 53.3%, and 40.0% for breast cancer; 48.6%, 64.1%, and 57.1% for prostate cancer; and 23.8%, 19.0%, and 26.1% for colorectal cancer. There were no statistically significant interactions by recruitment site or cancer type. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not find differences in receipt of recommended follow-up care by plan delivery approach. Feasibility and other factors may determine the best approach for survivorship care planning.

High Value Care in Cancer Surveillance and Screening: Evaluating an e-Curriculum for Primary Care Providers.

BACKGROUND: With an expected shortage of oncologists, primary care providers (PCPs) may need to manage more cancer surveillance and screening, areas where educational resources for PCPs have been limited. The goal of this e-curriculum was for PCPs to learn surveillance and screening for several common cancers. METHODS: The e-curriculum covered breast and colorectal cancer surveillance and lung cancer screening with (1) a pre-test assessing knowledge, attitudes, practice patterns, and confidence; (2) case vignette-based teaching; and (3) an immediate post-test (with knowledge and confidence items identical to the pre-test) providing feedback. A delayed post-test was administered several months later. The curriculum and test items were developed by content experts and evaluated in a primary care group practice. RESULTS: Of 167 community PCPs, 152 completed the pre-test (91%), 145 completed the immediate post-test (87%), and 63 completed the delayed post-test (37%); 62 PCPs completed all three tests (37%). The median score on the pre-test was 43%, immediate post-test was 93%, and delayed post-test was 70%. For PCPs completing all three tests, the median scores were 50%, 90%, and 70%, respectively (p < 0.0001). The percentage of PCPs confident in their knowledge 4 to 6 months after module completion compared to the pre-test baseline was statistically significant for lung cancer screening but not for cancer surveillance. CONCLUSION: This curriculum provided concise, effective education for PCPs on 3 common cancers. Limitations include content breadth and lack of data reflecting physician ordering patterns. Curricular strengths include its accessibility, immediate feedback, and effectiveness, with a significant improvement in immediate and delayed post-test knowledge. Given a lack of increased confidence to provide cancer surveillance, PCPs should rely on electronic medical record tools and other resources to guide appropriate surveillance care.

Colorectal cancer survivorship care plans: Variations in documentation and posttreatment surveillance recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Survivorship care plans (SCP) should outline pertinent information about cancer treatment and follow-up. METHODS: We descriptively analyzed the content of 74 colorectal cancer SCPs completed as part of a randomized, controlled trial of SCPs at an academic and community cancer center. Surveillance recommendations were compared with American Cancer Society, American Society of Clinical Oncology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. RESULTS: SCP information provided in >80% of the plans included participant age, cancer diagnosis, details, and side-effects of treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, radiation) and health promotion recommendations. SCP content documented less frequently included predisposing conditions, genetic counseling/testing information and staging. Posttreatment surveillance recommendations were documented in >90% SCPs. For stage 2-3 cancer, rates of guideline concordant recommendations were 100% for colonoscopy surveillance (Year 1 only), 87% for imaging surveillance, 65% for carcinoembryonic antigen surveillance, and 33% for follow-up visits. Excluding colonoscopy, >15 unique recommendations were listed for each modality across stages and sites, with more variation at the academic site. CONCLUSIONS: SCPs consistently recorded information about cancer diagnosis and treatment but omitted critical information about cancer-specific details denoting risk. Surveillance recommendations varied considerably between cancer centers. Future work to improve the consistency of surveillance recommendations documented in SCPs may be needed.

Primary care clinicians' perceptions of colorectal cancer screening tests for older adults.

Colonoscopy is an effective screening test for colorectal cancer but is associated with significant risks and burdens, especially in older adults. Stool tests, which are more convenient, more accessible, and less invasive, can be important tools to improve screening. How clinicians make decisions about colonoscopy versus stool tests in older patients is not well-understood. We conducted semi-structured interviews with primary care clinicians throughout Maryland in 2018-2019 to examine how clinicians considered the use of stool tests for colorectal cancer screening in their older patients. Thirty clinicians from 21 clinics participated. The mean clinician age was 48.2 years. The majority were physicians (24/30) and women (16/30). Four major themes were identified using qualitative content analysis: (1) Stool test equivalency - although many clinicians still considered colonoscopy as the test of choice, some clinicians considered stool tests equivalent options for screening. (2) Reasons for recommending stool tests - clinicians reported preferentially using stool tests in sicker/older patients or patients who declined colonoscopy. (3) Stool test overuse - some clinicians reported recommending stool tests for patients for whom guidelines do not recommend any screening. (4) Barriers to use - perceived barriers to using stool tests included lack of familiarity, un-returned stool test kits, concern for accuracy, and concern about cost. In summary, clinicians reported preferentially using stool tests in sicker and older patients and mentioned examples of potential overuse. Additional studies are needed on how to better individualize the use of different colorectal screening tests in older patients.

What are survivorship care plans failing to tell men after prostate cancer treatment?

BACKGROUND: Survivorship care plans contain important information for patients and primary care physicians regarding appropriate care for cancer survivors after treatment. We describe the completeness of prostate cancer survivorship care plans and evaluate the concordance of follow-up recommendations with guidelines. METHODS: We analyzed 119 prostate cancer survivorship care plans from one academic and one community cancer center, abstracting demographics, cancer/treatment details, and follow-up recommendations. Follow-up recommendations were compared with the American Cancer Society (ACS), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. RESULTS: Content in >90% of plans included cancer TNM stage; prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at diagnosis; radiation treatment details (98% of men received radiation); and PSA monitoring recommendations. Potential treatment-specific side effects were listed for 82% of men who had surgery, 86% who received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), and 97% who underwent radiation. The presence of posttreatment symptoms was noted in 71% of plans. Regarding surveillance follow-up, all guidelines recommend an annual digital rectal exam (DRE). No plans specified DRE. However, all 71 plans at the community site recommended at least annual follow-up visits with urology, radiation oncology, and primary care. Only 2/48 plans at the academic site specified follow-up visits. All guidelines recommend PSA testing every 6-12 months for 5 years, then annually. For the first 5 years, 90% of plans were guideline-concordant, 8% suggested oversurveillance, and 2% were incomplete. In men receiving ADT, ACS and ASCO recommend bone density imaging and NCCN recommends testosterone levels. Of 77 men on ADT, 1% were recommended bone density imaging and 16% testosterone level testing. CONCLUSIONS: While care plan content is more complete for demographic and treatment summary information, both sites had gaps in reporting posttreatment symptoms and ADT-related testing recommendations. These findings highlight the need to improve the quality of information in care plans, which are important in communicating appropriate follow-up recommendations to patients and primary care physicians.

Primary Care Clinician Decision-Making Around Surveillance Colonoscopies in Older Adults with Prior Adenomas.

INTRODUCTION: While guidelines recommend against routine colorectal cancer screening in adults >75 years and/or those with limited life expectancies, there is no clear guidance on when surveillance colonoscopies following prior adenoma detection should stop. How primary care clinicians weigh the potential risks and benefits of surveillance colonoscopies in older adults with prior adenomas is unknown. METHODS: We conducted semistructured in-person interviews with 30 primary care clinicians from 21 clinics in Maryland. We asked how clinicians decided whether to continue or stop surveillance colonoscopies in older adults (65+ years) with prior adenomas. Interview transcripts were independently coded by 2 investigators using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Participants described a range of decision-making approaches. Some deferred to specialists because they did not feel confident making decisions about stopping surveillance in light of the higher cancer risk involved. Some took a more active role and discussed the decision with patients and/or specialists. Other clinicians felt comfortable stopping surveillance colonoscopies and made these decisions based on patient age, comorbidities, or life expectancy. DISCUSSION: We found a range of decision-making approaches among primary care clinicians on whether to continue surveillance colonoscopies in older adults with prior adenomas. Separate bodies of evidence currently exist on how prior adenoma characteristics influence colorectal cancer risk and on how older age and declining health influence the benefit/harm balance of screening. Information is lacking on the benefits and harms of surveillance in older adults with prior adenomas. Developing the evidence to address this knowledge gap is critically needed to inform clinical decision making.

Assessment of Clinician Decision-making on Cancer Screening Cessation in Older Adults With Limited Life Expectancy.

Importance: Despite clinical practice guidelines recommending against routine cancer screening in older adults with limited life expectancy, older adults are still frequently screened for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers. Objective: To examine primary care clinicians' decision-making on stopping breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer screening in older adults with limited life expectancy. Design, Setting, and Participants: In qualitative interviews coupled with medical record-stimulated recall, clinicians from 17 academic and community clinics affiliated with a large health system were asked how they came to specific cancer screening decisions in 2 or 3 of their older patients with less than 10-year of estimated life expectancy, including patients with and without recent screening. Patients were surveyed by telephone. Data collection occurred between October 2018 and May 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinician interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analyzed with qualitative content analysis to identify major themes. Patient surveys assessed perception of cancer screening decisions, importance of clinician recommendation, and willingness to stop screening. Results: Twenty-five primary care clinicians (mean [SD] age, 47.1 [9.7] years; 14 female [56%]) discussed 53 patients during medical record-stimulated recall, ranging from 2 to 3 patients per clinician; 46 patients and 1 caregiver (mean [SD] age 74.9 [5.4]; 31 female [66%]) participated in the survey. Clinician interviews revealed 5 major themes: (1) cancer screening decisions were not always conscious, deliberate decisions; (2) electronic medical record alerts were connected with less deliberate decision-making; (3) cancer screening was not binary and clinicians often considered other options to scale back screening without actually stopping; (4) in addition to patient characteristics, clinicians were influenced by patient request and anecdotal experiences; and (5) influences outside of the primary care clinician-patient dyad were important, such as from specialists and patients' family or friends. Patient surveys asked approximately 64 cancer screening decisions of 47 patients. Patients did not recall approximately half (31 of 64) of their cancer screening decisions. Among those with recent screening, the mean score for willingness to stop screening was 3.2 (95% CI 2.5-3.9) on a 5-point Likert scale (with 1 indicating "extremely unlikely" and 5 indicating "extremely likely"). In most screening decisions that involved specialists (13 of 16), patients valued specialists' recommendations over those of primary care clinicians. Conclusions and Relevance: Cancer screening decision-making is complex. Study findings suggest that strategies that facilitate more deliberate decision-making may be important in cancer screening of older adults with limited life expectancy.

Clinician Perspectives on Overscreening for Cancer in Older Adults With Limited Life Expectancy.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Guidelines recommend against routine screening for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers in older adults with less than 10 years of life expectancy. However, clinicians often continue to recommend cancer screening for these patients. We examined primary care clinicians' perspectives regarding overscreening, as defined by limited life expectancy. DESIGN: Semistructured, in-depth individual interviews. SETTING: Twenty-one academic and nonacademic primary care clinics in Maryland. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty primary care clinicians from internal medicine, family medicine, medicine/pediatrics, and geriatric medicine. MEASUREMENTS: Interviews explored whether the clinicians believed that overscreening for breast, colorectal, or prostate cancers existed in older adults and their views on using life expectancy to decide on stopping routine screening. Audio recordings of the interviews were transcribed verbatim. Two investigators independently coded all transcripts using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Most clinicians were physicians (24/30) and women (16/30). Content analysis generated three major themes. (1) Many, but not all, clinicians perceived overscreening in older adults as a problem. (2) There was controversy around using limited life expectancy to define overscreening due to concerns that the guidelines did not capture potential nonmortality benefits of screening; that population-based screening data could not be easily applied to individuals; that this approach failed to account for patient choice; and that life expectancy predictions were inaccurate. (3) Some clinicians worried that using life expectancy to define overscreening may inadvertently introduce bias and lead to unintended harms. CONCLUSIONS: Several clinicians disagreed with guideline frameworks of using limited life expectancy to guide cancer screening cessation. Some disagreement stems from inadequate knowledge about the benefits and harms of cancer screening and indicates a need for education or decision support. Other reasons for disagreement highlight the need to refine the current recommended cancer screening approaches and identify strategies to avoid unintended consequences, such as introducing bias or exacerbating existing disparities. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1462-1468, 2020.

Breast cancer survivorship care plans: what are they covering and how well do they align with national guidelines?

PURPOSE: Survivorship care plans (SCPs) provide key information about cancer treatment history and follow-up recommendations. We describe the completeness of breast cancer SCPs and evaluate guideline concordance of follow-up recommendations. METHODS: We analyzed 149 breast cancer SCPs from two sites, abstracting demographics, cancer/treatment details, surveillance plans, and health promotion advice. SCP recommendations and provided information were compared to American Cancer Society/American Society of Clinical Oncology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. RESULTS: SCP information provided in > 90% of the plans included patient age; relevant providers; cancer stage; treatment details; and physical exam, mammogram, and health promotion recommendations. SCP components completed less frequently included post-treatment symptoms/side effects (67%). All SCPs at the community site were uniform but had the potential for oversurveillance if visits occurred every 3 months in years 1-2 or every 6 months in years 3-5 with multiple cancer providers. The academic site recommended three predominant patterns of follow-up: (1) primary care provider every 6-12 months; (2) cancer team every 3-6 months (year 1), every 6-12 months (years 4-5); and (3) alternating oncology providers every 3-6 months (years 1-2) then every 6 months. Compared to guidelines, these patterns recommend under- and oversurveillance at various times. Mammography recommendations showed guideline concordance (annual) for 84%, oversurveillance for 10%, and were incomplete for 6%. SCPs of only 12/79 (15%) women on aromatase inhibitors recommended guideline-concordant bone density testing. CONCLUSIONS: SCP content is more complete for demographic and treatment summary information but has follow-up recommendation gaps. Efforts to improve follow-up recommendations are needed.

The Johns Hopkins Primary Care for Cancer Survivor Clinic: lessons learned in our first 4 years.

PURPOSE: We established the Primary Care for Cancer Survivor (PCCS) Clinic in 2015 to address transition and care delivery challenges unique to cancer survivors. We describe the clinical program, detail patients from the first 4 years of implementation, and discuss lessons learned during the process. METHODS: We abstracted relevant patient information from the electronic medical record, administered a needs assessment survey at initial visits, and collected relative value unit (RVU) data. RESULTS: Between August 2015 and May 2019, we saw 230 PCCS patients with an increasing number of referrals yearly; nearly half were breast cancer survivors. At the initial visit, patients reported a median of 9 needs, with emotional needs most prevalent; over a third received at least one referral. PCCS patients generated higher billing codes and average RVUs compared with general patients. CONCLUSIONS: In its first 4 years, the PCCS program has thrived as a unique model of cancer survivorship centered in primary care. PCCS patients reported numerous needs, emphasizing the critical need for a multi-disciplinary approach in this population. With increasing referrals, we have considered different risk stratification and staffing models for capacity and expansion. By generating more RVUs per visit compared with the general clinic, PCCS has demonstrated financial sustainability. Buy-in from our oncology colleagues, divisional support from general medicine, along with our collaboration of like-minded internists have allowed us to be a robust program. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Models of survivorship care embedded in primary care can provide meaningful, patient-centered care for cancer survivors.

Care Coordination and Transitions of Care.

Care coordination and effective transitions of care are essential for high-quality care in cancer survivors. Aspects of care that require coordination include cancer surveillance, managing the effects of cancer and its treatment, and preventive care, including screening for new cancers, with the clinician responsible for each aspect of care clearly defined. There are many barriers to transitioning and coordinating care across cancer specialists and primary care physicians; possible solutions include survivorship care plans and certain care models. Improving these areas, along with survivorship care training and education, may lead to more effective care coordination and transitions in the future.

Use of a 90-Minute Admission Window and Front-Fill System to Reduce Work Compression on a General Medicine Inpatient Teaching Service.

BACKGROUND: Duty hour limits have shortened intern shifts without concurrent reductions in workload, creating work compression. Multiple admissions during shortened shifts can result in poor training experience and patient care. OBJECTIVE: To relieve work compression, improve resident satisfaction, and improve duty hour compliance in an academic internal medicine program. METHODS: In 2014, interns on general ward services were allotted 90 minutes per admission from 3 pm to 7 pm, when the rate of admissions was high. Additional admissions arriving during the protected period were directed to hospitalists. Resident teams received 2 patients admitted by the night float team to start the call day (front-fill). RESULTS: Of the 51 residents surveyed before and after the implementation of the intervention, 39 (77%) completed both surveys. Respondents reporting an unmanageable workload fell from 14 to 1 (P < .001), and the number of residents reporting that they felt unable to admit patients in a timely manner decreased from 14 to 2 (P < .001). Reports of adequate time with patients increased from 16 to 36 (P < .001), and residents indicating that they had time to learn from patients increased from 19 to 35 (P < .001). Reports of leaving on time after call days rose from 12 to 33 (P < .01), and overall satisfaction increased from 26 to 35 (P = .002). Results were similar when residents were resurveyed 6 months after the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Call day modifications improved resident perceptions of their workload and time for resident learning and patient care.

Screening for colorectal cancer.

This review will comprise a general overview of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We will cover the impact of CRC, CRC risk factors, screening modalities, and guideline recommendations for screening in average-risk and high-risk individuals. Based on this data, we will summarize our approach to CRC screening.