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.

Introduction of checklists at daily progress notes improves patient care among the gynecological oncology service.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of the introduction of checklists at the daily progress note to improve patient care among gynecologic oncology patients. METHODS: A progress note incorporating checklists that were pertinent for our patient population was developed with input obtained from all staff involved on patients care. The form was approved by the hospital. The average length of stay, compliance with prophylactic guidelines (anticoagulation, peptic ulcer disease), reason for admission, and readmission rate were compared among the preimplementation and postimplementation periods. RESULTS: A total of 492 discharge summaries were evaluated through the study period (267 for the preimplementation period and 225 for the postimplementation period). The mean length of stay was of 4.46 days for the preimplementation and 3.46 days for the postimplementation period (P = 0.007). TEDs/SCDs were not used in 9.3% of the patients in the pre group versus 0.6% in the post group (P < 0.001). DVT prophylaxis was given to 30.1% of the pre group versus 34.8% of the post group (P = 0.0013). The administration of PUD prophylaxis also increased from 28.3% in the pre group to 40.2% of the post group (P < 0.001). There was a decrease in the nonsurgical admissions from 22.2% in the pre group versus 14.6% in the post group (P = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: The use of checklists in daily progress notes enhances patient care by improving the delivery of routine care that is often overlooked in the light of major medical issues.