Teamwork competencies for interprofessional cancer care in multiteam systems: A narrative synthesis.

Numerous teamwork competency frameworks are designed for co-located, procedure-driven teams delivering care in acute settings. Little is known about their applicability or evaluation among larger teams-of-teams, known as multiteam systems (MTS), involved in delivering care for complex chronic conditions like cancer. In this review we aimed to identify studies examining teamwork competencies or teamwork competency frameworks developed or tested in healthcare teams, identify the extent to which they have been applied or evaluated in cancer care, and understand their applicability to larger MTSs involved in coordinating cancer care. We identified 107 relevant original articles, consensus statements, and prior systematic reviews published from 2013-2019. Most original papers (n = 96) were intervention studies of inpatient acute care teams (52, 54%). Fifty-eight articles (60%) used existing frameworks to define competency domains. Four original articles and two consensus statements addressed teamwork competencies for cancer care. Few frameworks or interprofessional education (IPE) curricula specifically addressed teamwork among larger, distributed teams or examined competencies necessary to overcome care coordination challenges in cancer care MTSs. Research guiding the development of frameworks and IPE that consider challenges to effective coordination among larger MTSs and studies of their impact on patient and clinical outcomes is essential to optimal, high-quality care.

Managing creativity and compliance in the pursuit of patient safety.

BACKGROUND: Are creativity and compliance mutually exclusive? In clinical settings, this question is increasingly relevant. Hospitals and clinics seek the creative input of their employees to help solve persistent patient safety issues, such as the prevention of bloodstream infections, while simultaneously striving for greater adherence to evidence-based guidelines and protocols. Extant research provides few answers about how creativity works in such contexts. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey data were collected from employees in 24 different U.S.-based outpatient hemodialysis clinics. Linear mixed-effects models were utilized to test study hypotheses. Professional status, clinic climate variables, and interaction terms were modeled as fixed effects, with a random effect for clinic included in all models. RESULTS: Our results show that high status employees contributed more creative patient safety improvement ideas compared to low status employees. However, when high status employees were part of clinics with a stronger safety climate of compliance, they contributed fewer creative ideas compared to their counterparts working in clinics with a reduced compliance orientation. We also predicted low status employees working in less punitive clinics would contribute more creative ideas, but this hypothesis was not fully supported. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that in hospitals and clinics that rely on strict protocols and formal hierarchies to meet their goals, the factors that promote creativity may be distinctively context-dependent. Implications for theory, practice, as well as future directions for research examining creativity in healthcare and safety critical contexts are discussed.

Manifestations of High-Reliability Principles on Hospital Units With Varying Safety Profiles: A Qualitative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: To prevent patient harm, health care organizations are adopting practices from other complex work environments known as high-reliability organizations (HRO). PURPOSE: The purpose was to explore differences in manifestations of HRO principles on hospital units with high and low safety performance. METHODS: Focus groups were conducted on units scoring high or low on safety measures. Themes were identified using a grounded theory approach, and responses were compared using qualitative thematic analysis. RESULTS: High performers indicated proactive responses to safety issues and expressed understanding of systems-based errors, while low performers were more reactive and often focused on individual education to address issues. Both groups experienced communication challenges, although they employed different methods of speaking up. CONCLUSION: Some HRO principles were present in the language used by our participants. High performers exhibited greater manifestations of HRO, although HRO alone was insufficient to describe our results. Mindful organizing, which expands on HRO, was a better fit.

Unpacking Care Coordination Through a Multiteam System Lens: A Conceptual Framework and Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The 2016 President's Cancer Panel Connected Health report calls for thoroughly characterizing the team structures and processes involved in coordinating care for people with chronic conditions. We developed a multilevel care coordination framework by integrating existing frameworks from the teams and care coordination literatures, and used it to review evidence examining care coordination processes for patients with cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and combinations of these conditions. METHODS: We searched Pubmed/MedLINE, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane, PsycINFO (December 2009-June 2016), and references from previous reviews. Studies describing behavioral markers of coordination between ≥2 US health care providers caring for adults with cancer, chronic heart disease, diabetes, or populations with a combination of these conditions were included. Two investigators screened 4876 records and 180 full-text articles yielding 33 studies. One investigator abstracted data, a second checked abstractions for accuracy. RESULTS: Most studies identified information sharing or monitoring as key coordination processes. To execute these processes, most studies used a designated role (eg, coordinator), objects and representations (eg, survivorship plans), plans and rules (eg, protocols), or routines (eg, meetings). Few examined the integrating conditions. None statistically examined coordination processes or integrating conditions as mediators of relationships between specific coordination mechanisms and patient outcomes. LIMITATIONS: Restricted to United States, English-language studies; heterogeneity in methods and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Limited research unpacks relationships between care coordination mechanisms, coordination processes, integrating conditions, and patient outcomes suggested by existing theory. The proposed framework offers an organizer for examining behaviors and conditions underlying effective care coordination.

Examining Variation in Mental Models of Influence and Leadership Among Nursing Leaders and Direct Care Nurses.

This study explored similarities and differences in the views on team membership and leadership held by nurses in formal unit leadership positions and direct care nurses. We used a mixed-methods approach and a maximum variance sampling strategy, sampling from units with both high and low safety behaviors and safety culture scores. We identified several key differences in mental models of care team membership and leadership between formal leaders and direct care nurses that warrant further exploration.

Examining influences on speaking up among critical care healthcare providers in the United Arab Emirates.

OBJECTIVE: Assess perceived barriers to speaking up and to provide recommendations for reducing barriers to reporting adverse events and near misses. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, INTERVENTION: A six-item survey was administered to critical care providers in 19 Intensive Care Units in Abu Dhabi as part of an organizational safety and quality improvement effort. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Questions elicited perspectives about influences on reporting, perceived barriers and recommendations for conveying patient safety as an organizational priority. Qualitative thematic analyses were conducted for open-ended questions. RESULTS: A total of 1171 participants were invited to complete the survey and 639 responded (response rate = 54.6%). Compared to other stakeholders (e.g. the media, public), a larger proportion of respondents 'agreed/strongly agreed' that corporate health system leadership and the health regulatory authority encouraged and supported error reporting (83%; 75%), and had the most influence on their decisions to report (81%; 74%). 29.5% of respondents cited fear of repercussion as a barrier, and 21.3% of respondents indicated no barriers to reporting. Barriers included perceptions of a culture of blame and issues with reporting procedures. Recommendations to establish patient safety as an organizational priority included creating supportive environments to discuss errors, hiring staff to advocate for patient safety, and implementing policies to standardize clinical practices and streamline reporting procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Influences on reporting perceived by providers in the UAE were similar to those in the US and other countries. These findings highlight the roles of corporate leadership and regulators in developing non-punitive environments where reporting is a valuable and safe activity.

Handoffs, safety culture, and practices: evidence from the hospital survey on patient safety culture.

BACKGROUND: The context of the study is the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPSC). The purpose of the study is to analyze how different elements of patient safety culture are associated with clinical handoffs and perceptions of patient safety. METHODS: The study was performed with hierarchical multiple linear regression on data from the 2010 Survey. We examine the statistical relationships between perceptions of handoffs and transitions practices, patient safety culture, and patient safety. We statistically controlled for the systematic effects of hospital size, type, ownership, and staffing levels on perceptions of patient safety. RESULTS: The main findings were that the effective handoff of information, responsibility, and accountability were necessary to positive perceptions of patient safety. Feedback and communication about errors were positively related to the transfer of patient information; teamwork within units and the frequency of events reported were positively related to the transfer of personal responsibility during shift changes; and teamwork across units was positively related to the unit transfers of accountability for patients. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, staff views on the behavioral dimensions of handoffs influenced their perceptions of the hospital's level of patient safety. Given the known psychological links between perception, attitude, and behavior, a potential implication is that better patient safety can be achieved by a tight focus on improving handoffs through training and monitoring.

A Collaborative Learning Network Approach to Improvement: The CUSP Learning Network.

BACKGROUND: Collaborative improvement networks draw on the science of collaborative organizational learning and communities of practice to facilitate peer-to-peer learning, coaching, and local adaption. Although significant improvements in patient safety and quality have been achieved through collaborative methods, insight regarding how collaborative networks are used by members is needed. Improvement Strategy: The Comprehensive Unit-based Safety Program (CUSP) Learning Network is a multi-institutional collaborative network that is designed to facilitate peer-to-peer learning and coaching specifically related to CUSP. Member organizations implement all or part of the CUSP methodology to improve organizational safety culture, patient safety, and care quality. Qualitative case studies developed by participating members examine the impact of network participation across three levels of analysis (unit, hospital, health system). In addition, results of a satisfaction survey designed to evaluate member experiences were collected to inform network development. RESULTS: Common themes across case studies suggest that members found value in collaborative learning and sharing strategies across organizational boundaries related to a specific improvement strategy. CONCLUSION: The CUSP Learning Network is an example of network-based collaborative learning in action. Although this learning network focuses on a particular improvement methodology-CUSP-there is clear potential for member-driven learning networks to grow around other methods or topic areas. Such collaborative learning networks may offer a way to develop an infrastructure for longer-term support of improvement efforts and to more quickly diffuse creative sustainment strategies.

Rapid-response systems as a patient safety strategy: a systematic review.

Rapid-response systems (RRSs) are a popular intervention in U.S. hospitals and are supported by accreditors and quality improvement organizations. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of these systems in acute care settings. A literature search was performed between 1 January 2000 through 30 October 2012 using PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies published in any language evaluating outcome changes that occurred after implementing an RRS and differences between groups using and not using an RRS (effectiveness) or describing methods used by RRSs (implementation) were reviewed. A single reviewer (checked by a second reviewer) abstracted data and rated study quality and strength of evidence. Moderate-strength evidence from a high-quality meta-analysis of 18 studies and 26 lower-quality before-and-after studies published after that meta-analysis showed that RRSs are associated with reduced rates of cardiorespiratory arrest outside of the intensive care unit and reduced mortality. Eighteen studies examining facilitators of and barriers to implementation suggested that the rate of use of RRSs could be improved.

Promoting a culture of safety as a patient safety strategy: a systematic review.

Developing a culture of safety is a core element of many efforts to improve patient safety and care quality. This systematic review identifies and assesses interventions used to promote safety culture or climate in acute care settings. The authors searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and EMBASE to identify relevant English-language studies published from January 2000 to October 2012. They selected studies that targeted health care workers practicing in inpatient settings and included data about change in patient safety culture or climate after a targeted intervention. Two raters independently screened 3679 abstracts (which yielded 33 eligible studies in 35 articles), extracted study data, and rated study quality and strength of evidence. Eight studies included executive walk rounds or interdisciplinary rounds; 8 evaluated multicomponent, unit-based interventions; and 20 included team training or communication initiatives. Twenty-nine studies reported some improvement in safety culture or patient outcomes, but measured outcomes were highly heterogeneous. Strength of evidence was low, and most studies were pre-post evaluations of low to moderate quality. Within these limits, evidence suggests that interventions can improve perceptions of safety culture and potentially reduce patient harm.

Team complexity and care coordination for cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions: a mixed methods study.

PURPOSE: Little is known about the perceptions and experiences of care received from healthcare teams among cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). METHODS: Cancer survivors completed an online survey (N=441) of which 12 participated in an interview. Team complexity was operationalized based on team size, clinician specialties, and health system affiliation. Kilpatrick's Patient-Perceptions of Team Effectiveness (PTE) questionnaire measured team effectiveness. Constant comparative method was used to identify care coordination challenges and facilitators from interviews. RESULTS: Mean age at cancer diagnosis was 45 years (SD=14), 68% were 5 years from diagnosis, the most common cancer was breast (27%), and two-thirds had two or more pre-diagnosis comorbidities. Sixty percent rated both cancer and other condition(s) as taking priority. Team complexity varied from low (32%), moderate (49%), and high (20%). Eighty percent rated PTE overall as high, with variation by subscales: coordination (85%) and patient-family focus (47%). Higher team complexity was associated with lower PTE overall (p=0.049). Challenges were identified: sequential referrals with no integration across team members; no shared mental model among team; and cancer survivor having to "referee" conflicting care decisions. CONCLUSION: This mixed method study found an inverse relationship between team complexity and PTE-overall, where high-complexity teams had lower team effectiveness. Participants reported issues with the problem-solving abilities of their teams and felt like their contributions were not valued by their care team. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Improving team effectiveness offers one way to leverage the expertise of multiple specialties to deliver integrated, patient-centered care for the growing population of cancer survivors with MCC.

Climate Change Harm Perception Among U.S. Adults in the NCI Health Information National Trends Survey, 2022.

PURPOSE: To examine associations between 1) sociodemographics and 2) trust in health information sources with climate change harm perception. METHODS: Weighted adjusted logistic regression models examined correlates of climate change harm perception (harm vs no harm/don't know) among a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults (2022, n = 5585). RESULTS: Sixty-four percent of U.S. adults believed climate change will harm their health. College education (vs high school or less) (AOR 1.7, 95% CI 1.3, 2.2) and having greater trust in doctors (AOR 1.4, 95% CI 1.2, 1.7), scientists (aOR 1.8, 95% CI 1.6, 2.0), and government health agencies (AOR 1.7, 95% CI 1.5, 1.9) for health information were associated with believing climate change harms health. Conversely, greater trust in religious organizations was associated with 16% lower odds of believing climate change harms health (95% CI .74, .94). CONCLUSIONS: Climate change harm perception varied by sociodemographics and trust in health information source. Health communication delivered via alternative and diverse channels could expand the reach of climate and health messaging and ultimately increase public awareness and support for measures to mitigate the health impacts of climate change.

Health-care organization characteristics in cancer care delivery: an integrated conceptual framework with content validation.

Context can influence cancer-related outcomes. For example, health-care organization characteristics, including ownership, leadership, and culture, can affect care access, communication, and patient outcomes. Health-care organization characteristics and other contextual factors can also influence whether and how clinical discoveries reduce cancer incidence, morbidity, and mortality. Importantly, policy, market, and technology changes are transforming health-care organization design, culture, and operations across the cancer continuum. Consequently, research is essential to examine when, for whom, and how organizational characteristics influence person-level, organization-level, and population-level cancer outcomes. Understanding organizational characteristics-the structures, processes, and other features of entities involved in health care delivery-and their dynamics is an important yet understudied area of care delivery research across the cancer continuum. Research incorporating organizational characteristics is critical to address health inequities, test care delivery models, adapt interventions, and strengthen implementation. The field lacks conceptual grounding, however, to help researchers identify germane organizational characteristics. We propose a framework identifying organizational characteristics relevant for cancer care delivery research based on conceptual work in health services, organizational behavior, and management science and refined using a systematic review and key informant input. The proposed framework is a tool for organizing existing research and enhancing future cancer care delivery research. Following a 2012 Journal of the National Cancer Institute monograph, this work complements National Cancer Institute efforts to stimulate research addressing the relationship between cancer outcomes and contextual factors at the patient, provider, team, delivery organization, community, and health policy levels.

Cognitive and system factors contributing to diagnostic errors in radiology.

OBJECTIVE: In this article, we describe some of the cognitive and system-based sources of detection and interpretation errors in diagnostic radiology and discuss potential approaches to help reduce misdiagnoses. CONCLUSION: Every radiologist worries about missing a diagnosis or giving a false-positive reading. The retrospective error rate among radiologic examinations is approximately 30%, with real-time errors in daily radiology practice averaging 3-5%. Nearly 75% of all medical malpractice claims against radiologists are related to diagnostic errors. As medical reimbursement trends downward, radiologists attempt to compensate by undertaking additional responsibilities to increase productivity. The increased workload, rising quality expectations, cognitive biases, and poor system factors all contribute to diagnostic errors in radiology. Diagnostic errors are underrecognized and underappreciated in radiology practice. This is due to the inability to obtain reliable national estimates of the impact, the difficulty in evaluating effectiveness of potential interventions, and the poor response to systemwide solutions. Most of our clinical work is executed through type 1 processes to minimize cost, anxiety, and delay; however, type 1 processes are also vulnerable to errors. Instead of trying to completely eliminate cognitive shortcuts that serve us well most of the time, becoming aware of common biases and using metacognitive strategies to mitigate the effects have the potential to create sustainable improvement in diagnostic errors.

Clinical Multiteam System Composition and Complexity Among Newly Diagnosed Early-Stage Breast, Colorectal, and Lung Cancer Patients With Multiple Chronic Conditions: A SEER-Medicare Analysis.

PURPOSE: Sixty percent of adults have multiple chronic conditions at cancer diagnosis. These patients may require a multidisciplinary clinical team-of-teams, or a multiteam system (MTS), of high-complexity involving multiple specialists and primary care, who, ideally, coordinate clinical responsibilities, share information, and align clinical decisions to ensure comprehensive care needs are managed. However, insights examining MTS composition and complexity among individuals with cancer and comorbidities at diagnosis using US population-level data are limited. METHODS: Using SEER-Medicare data (2006-2016), we identified newly diagnosed patients with breast, colorectal, or lung cancer who had a codiagnosis of cardiopulmonary disease and/or diabetes (n = 75,201). Zaccaro's theory-based classification of MTSs was used to categorize clinical MTS complexity in the 4 months following cancer diagnosis: high-complexity (≥ 4 clinicians from ≥ 2 specialties) and low-complexity (1-3 clinicians from 1-2 specialties). We describe the proportions of patients with different MTS compositions and quantify the incidence of high-complexity MTS care by patient groups. RESULTS: The most common MTS composition was oncology with primary care (37%). Half (50.3%) received high-complexity MTS care. The incidence of high-complexity MTS care for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients with cancer was 6.7% (95% CI, -8.0 to -5.3) and 4.7% (95% CI, -6.3 to -3.0) lower than non-Hispanic White patients with cancer; 13.1% (95% CI, -14.1 to -12.2) lower for rural residents compared with urban; 10.4% (95% CI, -11.2 to -9.5) lower for dual Medicaid-Medicare beneficiaries compared with Medicare-only; and 16.6% (95% CI, -17.5 to -15.8) lower for colorectal compared with breast cancer. CONCLUSION: Incidence differences of high-complexity MTS care were observed among cancer patients with multiple chronic conditions from underserved populations. The results highlight the need to further understand the effects of and mechanisms through which care team composition, complexity, and functioning affect care quality and outcomes.

Measuring teamwork and conflict among emergency medical technician personnel.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to develop a reliable and valid tool for measuring teamwork among emergency medical technician (EMT) partnerships. METHODS: We adapted existing scales and developed new items to measure components of teamwork. After recruiting a convenience sample of 39 agencies, we tested a 122-item draft survey tool (EMT-TEAMWORK). We performed a series of exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test reliability and construct validity, describing variation in domain and global scores using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: We received 687 completed surveys. The EFAs identified a nine-factor solution. We labeled these factors 1) Team Orientation, 2) Team Structure & Leadership, 3) Partner Communication, Team Support, & Monitoring, 4) Partner Trust and Shared Mental Models, 5) Partner Adaptability & Back-Up Behavior, 6) Process Conflict, 7) Strong Task Conflict, 8) Mild Task Conflict, and 9) Interpersonal Conflict. We tested a short-form (30-item SF) and long-form (45-item LF) version. The CFAs determined that both the SF and the LF possess positive psychometric properties of reliability and construct validity. The EMT-TEAMWORK-SF has positive internal consistency properties, with a mean Cronbach's alpha coefficient ≥0.70 across all nine factors (mean = 0.84; minimum = 0.78, maximum = 0.94). The mean Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the EMT-TEAMWORK-LF was 0.87 (minimum = 0.79, maximum = 0.94). There was wide variation in weighted scores across all nine factors and the global score for the SF and LF. Mean scores were lowest for the Team Orientation factor (48.1, standard deviation [SD] 21.5, SF; 49.3, SD 19.8, LF) and highest (more positive) for the Interpersonal Conflict factor (87.7, SD 18.1, for both SF and LF). CONCLUSIONS: We developed a reliable and valid survey to evaluate teamwork between EMT partners.

Thematic Analysis of Organizational Characteristics in NCI Community Oncology Research Program Cancer Care Delivery Research.

Organizational characteristics, including organizational structures and processes, are important to understanding care delivery and health outcomes. However, organizational-level constructs present measurement challenges in care delivery research. This analysis aims to understand if, when, and how organizational characteristics are examined in a National Cancer Institute (NCI) research network conducting cancer care delivery research (CCDR). The NCI Community Oncology Research Program encourages consideration of organizational variables in CCDR studies. We conducted a cross-sectional thematic analysis to identify organizational characteristics examined in this portfolio of research. Organizational characteristics targeted, related measures, and analytic approach were abstracted by 2 study investigators using a coding framework adapted from 2 existing frameworks. A total of 78.9% of eligible study protocols included organizational characteristics. Structural characteristics were the most common, collected in all 15 included protocols, 14 examined at least 1 organizational process, and 12 examined organizational-level outcomes. Most studies proposed descriptive practice-level analyses or multilevel analyses using random effects to account for clustering of patients and staff within practices. Few (n = 5) specified that organizational variables would be modeled as effects of interest (vs covaried out) or proposed analytic approaches that could more robustly examine effects of targeted organizational characteristics on primary outcomes. Inclusion of organizational variables is common in CCDR conducted through the NCI Community Oncology Research Program, NCI's national network charged with bringing cancer clinical trials to people in their communities. Nonetheless, opportunities remain to improve the use of theory to guide organizational construct selection, operationalization, measurement, and incorporation into study hypotheses and analyses.

Multilevel factors associated with inequities in multidisciplinary cancer consultation.

OBJECTIVE: To assess changes in the prevalence of multidisciplinary cancer consultations (MDCc) over the last decade and examine patient, surgeon, hospital, and neighborhood factors associated with receipt of MDCc among individuals diagnosed with cancer. DATA SOURCE: Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data from 2006 to 2016. STUDY DESIGN: We used time-series analysis to assess change in MDCc prevalence from 2007 to 2015. We also conducted multilevel logistic regression with random surgeon- and hospital-level effects to assess associations between patient, surgeon, neighborhood, and health care organization-level factors and receipt of MDCc during the cancer treatment planning phase, defined as the 2 months following cancer diagnosis. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We identified Medicare beneficiaries >65 years of age with surgically resected breast, colorectal (CRC), or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) stages I-III (n = 103,250). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: From 2007 to 2015, the prevalence of MDCc increased from 35.0% to 61.2%. Overall, MDCc was most common among patients with breast cancer compared to CRC and NSCLC. Cancer patients who were Black, had comorbidities, had dual Medicare-Medicaid coverage, were residing in rural areas or in areas with higher Black and Hispanic neighborhood composition were significantly less likely to have received MDCc. Patients receiving surgery at disproportionate payment-sharing or rural-designated hospitals had 2% (95% CI: -3.55, 0.58) and 17.6% (95% CI: -21.45, 13.70), respectively, less probability of receiving MDCc. Surgeon- and hospital-level effects accounted for 15% of the variance in receipt of MDCc. CONCLUSIONS: The practice of MDCc has increased over the last decade, but significant geographical and health care organizational barriers continue to impede equitable access to and delivery of quality care across cancer patient populations. Multilevel and multicomponent interventions that target care coordination, health system, and policy changes may enhance equitable access to and receipt of MDCc.

Team-Based Care for Cancer Survivors With Comorbidities: A Systematic Review.

Coordination of quality care for the growing population of cancer survivors with comorbidities remains poorly understood, especially among health disparity populations who are more likely to have comorbidities at the time of cancer diagnosis. This systematic review synthesized the literature from 2000 to 2022 on team-based care for cancer survivors with comorbidities and assessed team-based care conceptualization, teamwork processes, and outcomes. Six databases were searched for original articles on adults with cancer and comorbidity, which defined care team composition and comparison group, and assessed clinical or teamwork processes or outcomes. We identified 1,821 articles of which 13 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies occurred during active cancer treatment and nine focused on depression management. Four studies focused on Hispanic or Black cancer survivors and one recruited rural residents. The conceptualization of team-based care varied across articles. Teamwork processes were not explicitly measured, but teamwork concepts such as communication and mental models were mentioned. Despite team-based care being a cornerstone of quality cancer care, studies that simultaneously assessed care delivery and outcomes for cancer and comorbidities were largely absent. Improving care coordination will be key to addressing disparities and promoting health equity for cancer survivors with comorbidities.