Factors influencing implementation of a care coordination intervention for cancer survivors with multiple comorbidities in a safety-net system: an application of the Implementation Research Logic Model.

BACKGROUND: Under- and uninsured cancer survivors have significant medical, social, and economic complexity. For these survivors, effective care coordination between oncology and primary care teams is critical for high-quality, comprehensive care. While evidence-based interventions exist to improve coordination between healthcare teams, testing implementation of these interventions for cancer survivors seen in real-world safety-net settings has been limited. This study aimed to (1) identify factors influencing implementation of a multicomponent care coordination intervention (nurse coordinator plus patient registry) focused on cancer survivors with multiple comorbidities in an integrated safety-net system and (2) identify mechanisms through which the factors impacted implementation outcomes. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews (patients, providers, and system leaders), structured observations of primary care and oncology operations, and document analysis during intervention implementation between 2016 and 2020. The practice change model (PCM) guided data collection to identify barriers and facilitators of implementation; the PCM, Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, and Implementation Research Logic Model guided four immersion/crystallization data analysis and synthesis cycles to identify mechanisms and assess outcomes. Implementation outcomes included appropriateness, acceptability, adoption, and penetration. RESULTS: The intervention was appropriate and acceptable to primary care and oncology teams based on reported patient needs and resources and the strength of the evidence supporting intervention components. Active and sustained partnership with system leaders facilitated these outcomes. There was limited adoption and penetration early in implementation because the study was narrowly focused on just breast and colorectal cancer patients. This created barriers to real-world practice where patients with all cancer types receive care. Over time, flexibility intentionally designed into intervention implementation facilitated adoption and penetration. Regular feedback from system partners and rapid cycles of implementation and evaluation led to real-time adaptations increasing adoption and penetration. DISCUSSION: Evidence-based interventions to coordinate care for underserved cancer survivors across oncology and primary care teams can be implemented successfully when system leaders are actively engaged and with flexibility in implementation embedded intentionally to continuously facilitate adoption and penetration across the health system.

Supportive Care Needs Among Head and Neck Cancer Patients Prior to Oncologic Treatment: A Prospective, Nested Cross-Sectional Qualitative Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To qualitatively characterize pretreatment head and neck cancer (HNC) patients' supportive care (SC) needs, attitudes toward SC, and barriers to SC utilization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective, nested, bi-institutional, cross-sectional pilot study design was employed. Participants were sub-selected from a representative sample of 50 patients newly diagnosed with mucosal or salivary gland HNC or sarcoma of the head and neck. Eligibility criteria included reporting ≥2 unmet needs (according to the Supportive Care Needs Survey-Short Form 34) or clinically-significant distress (National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer score ≥4). Semi-structured interviews were performed prior to initiation of oncologic treatment. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and thematically analyzed using NVivo 12.0 (QSR Australia). Thematic findings and representative quotes were interpreted by the entire research team. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients were interviewed. One-third were treated at the county safety-net hospital and the remainder were treated at the university health system. An equal proportion of patients presented with oral cavity, oropharyngeal, and laryngeal or other tumors. Two significant findings were identified on semi-structured interviews. First, patients did not perceive the relevance of SC prior to treatment. Second, anxiety surrounding the HNC diagnosis and impending treatment dominated in the pretreatment phase. CONCLUSION: Improved HNC patient education about the relevance and importance of SC in the pretreatment setting is needed. Integration of social work or psychological services in HNC clinics is warranted to address patients' cancer-related worry-a discrete, dominant pretreatment SC need.

Thematic Analysis of Challenges of Care Coordination for Underinsured and Uninsured Cancer Survivors With Chronic Conditions.

Importance: Although a majority of underinsured and uninsured patients with cancer have multiple comorbidities, many lack consistent connections with a primary care team to manage chronic conditions during and after cancer treatment. This presents a major challenge to delivering high-quality comprehensive and coordinated care. Objective: To describe challenges and opportunities for coordinating care in an integrated safety-net system for patients with both cancer and other chronic conditions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multimodal qualitative study was conducted from May 2016 to July 2019 at a county-funded, vertically integrated safety-net health system including ambulatory oncology, urgent care, primary care, and specialty care. Participants were 93 health system stakeholders (clinicians, leaders, clinical, and administrative staff) strategically and snowball sampled for semistructured interviews and observation during meetings and daily processes of care. Data collection and analysis were conducted iteratively using a grounded theory approach, followed by systematic thematic analysis to organize data, review, and interpret comprehensive findings. Data were analyzed from March 2019 to March 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Multilevel factors associated with experiences of coordinating care for patients with cancer and chronic conditions among oncology and primary care stakeholders. Results: Among interviews and observation of 93 health system stakeholders, system-level factors identified as being associated with care coordination included challenges to accessing primary care, lack of communication between oncology and primary care clinicians, and leadership awareness of care coordination challenges. Clinician-level factors included unclear role delineation and lack of clinician knowledge and preparedness to manage the effects of cancer and chronic conditions. Conclusions and Relevance: Primary care may play a critical role in delivering coordinated care for patients with cancer and chronic diseases. This study's findings suggest a need for care delivery strategies that bridge oncology and primary care by enhancing communication, better delineating roles and responsibilities across care teams, and improving clinician knowledge and preparedness to care for patients with cancer and chronic conditions. Expanding timely access to primary care is also key, albeit challenging in resource-limited safety-net settings.

Patient and provider-level barriers to hepatitis C screening and linkage to care: A mixed-methods evaluation.

Achieving practice change can be challenging when guidelines shift from a selective risk-based strategy to a broader population health strategy, as occurred for hepatitis C (HCV) screening (2012-2013). We aimed to evaluate patient and provider barriers that contributed to suboptimal HCV screening and linkage-to-care rates after implementation of an intervention to improve HCV screening and linkage-to-care processes in a large, public integrated healthcare system following the guidelines change. As part of a mixed-methods study, we collected data through patient surveys (n = 159), focus groups (n = 9) and structured observation of providers and staff (n = 9). We used these findings to then inform domains for the second phase, which consisted of semi-structured interviews with patients across the screening-treatment continuum (n = 24) and providers and staff at primary care and hepatology clinics (n = 21). We transcribed and thematically analysed interviews using an integrated inductive and deductive framework. We identified lack of clarity about treatment cost, treatment complications and likelihood of cure as ongoing patient-level barriers to screening and linkage to care. Provider-level barriers included scepticism about establishing HCV screening as a quality metric given competing clinical priorities, particularly for patients with multiple comorbidities. However, most felt positively about adding HCV as a quality metric to enhance HCV screening and linkage to care. Provider engagement yielded suggestions for process improvements that resulted in increased stakeholder buy-in and real-time enhancements to the HCV screening process intervention. Systematic data collection at baseline and during practice change implementation may facilitate adoption and adaptation to improve HCV screening guideline implementation. Findings identified several key opportunities and lessons to enhance the impact of practice change interventions to improve HCV screening and treatment delivery.