[Community-Based Comprehensive Care System and Cancer Treatment Coordination System from the Viewpoint of Designated Cancer Hospitals].

In promoting the community-based comprehensive care system, designated cancer hospitals are required to provide decision- making support for treatment and care in the face of increasingly sophisticated and diverse treatments, to promote hospitalization and discharge support to shorten the length of hospital stay, and to implement multidisciplinary cooperation for coordination of treatment and care due to the increasing number of elderly and multi-morbidity cancer patients. However, it is difficult at present to link and integrate designated cancer hospitals, which are required to provide cancer treatment in each secondary medical care area, and community comprehensive care systems, which provide medical care and care to support daily life and autonomy and independence of patients and their families in the patients' living areas. In the future, through the promotion of networking and educational activities for healthcare professionals, as demonstrated in previous studies, it will be necessary to establish a system in which cancer treatment and community-based comprehensive care systems are linked to provide high-quality medical care and care to cancer patients.

Maximizing the impact of community outreach and engagement at US cancer centers.

In 2016, the National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers funding opportunity was expanded to require community outreach and engagement (COE), with explicit attention to cancer inequities, community engagement, and implementation science in the centers' catchment areas. Resource limitations constrain these activities, and we conducted a qualitative study to understand what COE leaders see as critical needs and supports to increase impact. In the spring of 2021, we interviewed leaders from 56 of 64 cancer centers with COE programs and analyzed the data using a reflexive, thematic approach. We identified 6 categories of needs: 1) centering community engagement among leadership and non-COE researchers, 2) increasing training on implementation science/practice, 3) improving integration into cross-center networks, 4) increasing funding for staffing and sustainment, 5) revising funder guidance and reporting, and 6) facilitating data utilization. COEs need long-term, systems-focused investments to engage communities, increase research translation, and advance health equity.

The experience of surgical cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic at a large cancer centre in London.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had an enormous impact on the experiences of patients across all health disciplines, especially those of cancer patients. The study aimed to understand the experiences of cancer patients who underwent surgery during the first two waves of the pandemic at Guy's Cancer Centre, which is a large tertiary cancer centre in London. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was adopted for this study. Firstly, a survey was co-designed by the research team and a patient study group. Patients who underwent surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic were invited to take part in this survey. Results were analysed descriptively. Three discussion groups were then conducted to focus on the main themes from the survey findings: communication, COVID-19 risk management and overall experience. These discussion groups were transcribed verbatim and underwent a thematic analysis using the NVivo software package. RESULTS: Out of 1657 patients invited, a total of 250 (15%) participants took part in the survey with a mean age of 66 (SD 12.8) and 52% females. The sample was representative of a wide range of tumour sites and was reflective of those invited to take part. Overall, the experience of the cancer patients was positive. They felt that the safety protocols implemented at the hospital were effective. Communication was considered key, and patients were receptive to a change in the mode of communication from in-person to virtual. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the immense challenges faced by our Cancer Centre, patients undergoing surgery during the first two waves of the COVID-19 pandemic had a generally positive experience with minimal disruptions to their planned surgery and ongoing care. Together with the COVID-19 safety precautions, effective communication between the clinical teams and the patients helped the overall patient experience during their surgical treatment.

Evolution of community outreach and engagement at National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers, an evolving journey.

Cancer mortality rates have declined during the last 28 years, but that process is not equitably shared. Disparities in cancer outcomes by race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation and gender identity, and geographic location persist across the cancer care continuum. Consequently, community outreach and engagement (COE) efforts within National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Center (NCI-DCC) catchment areas have intensified during the last 10 years as has the emphasis on COE and catchment areas in NCI's Cancer Center Support Grant applications. This review article attempts to provide a historic perspective of COE within NCI-DCCs. Improving COE has long been an important initiative for the NCI, but it was not until 2012 and 2016 that NCI-DCCs were required to define their catchment areas rigorously and to provide specific descriptions of COE interventions, respectively. NCI-DCCs had previously lacked adequate focus on the inclusion of historically marginalized patients in cancer innovation efforts. Integrating COE efforts throughout the research and operational aspects of the cancer centers, at both the patient and community levels, will expand the footprint of COE efforts within NCI-DCCs. Achieving this change requires sustained commitment by the centers to adjust their activities and improve access and outcomes for historically marginalized communities.

Evaluating implementation of a community-focused patient navigation intervention at an NCI-designated cancer center using RE-AIM.

BACKGROUND: Patient navigation is an evidence-based intervention that reduces cancer health disparities by directly addressing the barriers to care for underserved patients with cancer. Variability in design and integration of patient navigation programs within cancer care settings has limited this intervention's utility. The implementation science evaluation framework, RE-AIM, allows quantitative and qualitative examination of effective implementation of patient navigation programs into cancer care settings. METHODS: The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework was used to evaluate implementation of a community-focused patient navigation intervention at an NCI-designated cancer center between June 2018 and October 2021. Using a 3-month longitudinal, non-comparative measurement period, univariate and bivariate analyses were conducted to examine associations between participant-level demographics and primary (i.e., barrier reduction) and secondary (i.e., patient-reported outcomes) effectiveness outcomes. Mixed methods analyses were used to examine adoption and delivery of the intervention into the cancer center setting. Process-level analyses were used to evaluate maintenance of the intervention. RESULTS: Participants (n = 311) represented a largely underserved population, as defined by the National Cancer Institute, with the majority identifying as Hispanic/Latino, having a household income of $35,000 or less, and being enrolled in Medicaid. Participants were diagnosed with a variety of cancer types and most had advanced staged cancers. Pre-post-intervention analyses indicated significant reduction from pre-intervention assessments in the average number of reported barriers, F(1, 207) = 117.62, p < .001, as well as significant increases in patient-reported physical health, t(205) = - 6.004, p < .001, mental health, t(205) = - 3.810, p < .001, self-efficacy, t(205) = - 5.321, p < .001, and satisfaction with medical team communication, t(206) = - 2.03, p = .029. Referral patterns and qualitative data supported increased adoption and integration of the intervention into the target setting, and consistent intervention delivery metrics suggested high fidelity to intervention delivery over time. Process-level data outlined a successful transition from a grant-funded community-focused patient navigation intervention to an institution-funded program. CONCLUSIONS: This study utilized the implementation science evaluation framework, RE-AIM, to evaluate implementation of a community-focused patient navigation program. Our analyses indicate successful implementation within a cancer care setting and provide a potential guide for other oncology settings who may be interested in implementing community-focused patient navigation programs.

Value of a multidisciplinary geriatric oncology committee on patient care in a community-based, academic cancer center.

INTRODUCTION: The heterogeneity in health and functional ability among older patients makes the management of cancer a unique challenge. The Geriatric Oncology Program at the University of Maryland Baltimore Washington Medical Center (BWMC) was created to optimize cancer management for older patients. This study aimed to assess the benefits of the implementation of such a program at a community-based academic cancer center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed patients aged ≥80 years presenting to the Geriatric Oncology Program between 2017 and 2022. A multidisciplinary team of specialists collectively reviewed each patient using geriatric-specific domains and stratified each patient into one of three management groups- Group 1: those deemed fit to receive standard oncologic care (SOC); Group 2: those recommended to receive optimization services prior to reassessment for SOC; and Group 3: those deemed to be best suited for supportive care and/or hospice care. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 233 patients, of which 76 (32.6%) received SOC, 43 (18.5%) were optimized, and 114 (49.0%) received supportive care or hospice referral. Among the optimized patients, 69.8% were deemed fit for SOC upon re-evaluation following their respective optimization services. The Canadian Study of Health and Aging-Clinical Frailty Scale (CSHA-CFS) score was implemented in 2019 (n = 90). Patients receiving supportive/hospice care only had an average score of 5.8, while the averages for those in the optimization and SOC groups were 4.6 and 4.1, respectively (p ≤0.001). Patients receiving SOC had the longest average survival of 2.71 years compared to the optimization (2.30 years) and supportive care groups (0.93 years) (p ≤0.001). For all patients that underwent surgical interventions post-operatively, 23 patients (85%) were discharged home and four (15%) were discharged to a rehabilitation facility. DISCUSSION: The present study demonstrates the profound impact that the complexities in health status and frailty among older individuals can have during cancer management. The Geriatric Oncology Program at BWMC maximized treatment outcomes for older adults through the provision of SOC therapies and optimization services, while also minimizing unnecessary interventions on an individual patient-centric level.

[Patient-partnership in a comprehensive cancer centre: Establishment and roles of a patients and caregivers committee]. / Partenariat patient dans un centre de lutte contre le cancer : mise en place et rôles d'un comité de patients et aidants.

In oncology, the place of patients has a natural and strong legitimacy. Cancer is a common disease, with many singularities but also common features between pathologies, with issues ranging from prevention to possible palliative phases or post-cancer, and conducive to both individual and collective decision-making processes. Patient engagement is now essential at all levels of the healthcare system, from simple information to real involvement (co-construction). For 20 years, Gustave-Roussy, a comprehensive cancer centre in Villejuif, has implemented specific reflection and actions, embodied by the creation of a patients and caregivers committee and complemented by an institutional steering body that illustrates the transformation of "working for" into "working with". At the level of direct care, the main works promoted concern shared-decision-making between patient and professional and accompanying patients. At the institutional level, we find the expertise of hospital projects or services, the development of institutional documents (information and advance directives form, etc.), and internal evaluation (audit). At the political level, participation in Unicancer's patient-experience working group has allowed for a better coordinated deployment with other centers. Unicancer has developed a lexical guide defining patient resources, peer helpers, trainers, evaluators and coordinators. This partnership approach is beneficial for patients, their loved ones, caregivers, and must be amplified and give rise to new research work.

Contextual factors and mechanisms in the implementation of Value Stream Mapping in breast cancer centres - A multiple case study.

INTRODUCTION: Lean, especially Value Stream Mapping is increasingly used in hospitals to optimize processes. This method, which originated in the automotive industry, enables all staff involved in the process to make it more customer-friendly. Despite the widely reported success of Lean projects, they have failed in some cases. This study investigated the contextual factors and mechanisms that contribute to a successful implementation of Value Stream Mapping. METHODS: Value Stream Mapping was applied to the discharge process in four breast cancer centers. A mixed-method approach was used in two steps. First, to verify the successful implementation, defined as time optimization, time measurement was conducted at three points in time and analyzed using an ANOVA. Second, an analysis of contextual factors was combined with a qualitative content analysis of mechanisms based on normalization process theory, using routine data, meeting protocols, field notes, and interview transcripts as data source. RESULTS: At one of the four breast cancer centers, lead- and waiting time were significantly reduced; at the others, these reductions did not occur. Failure/success cannot be explained by the size of the hospital, the number of cases or staffing levels. The variable project team composition is evident, especially leadership involvement. DISCUSSION: A comparative analysis was conducted to identify the factors that led to success. These factors were: participation of all leaders relevant to the process, in the case of the discharge process including medical and nursing leaders; dissemination of the changes from the project team to colleagues including its sense and possibility to discuss it; joint reflection of the implementation process in regular work team meetings. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm the important role of leadership in implementation projects. Leadership support enabled the mechanisms found. The used combination of theoretical approaches from management research and implementation science determined the interpretation and should be applied more often in implementation science.

Addressing social needs in oncology care: another research-to-practice gap.

Social determinants of health and unmet social needs are directly related to cancer outcomes, from diagnosis to survivorship. If identified, unmet social needs can be addressed in oncology care by changing care plans in collaboration with patients' preferences and accounting for clinical practice guidelines (eg, reducing the frequency of appointments, switching treatment modalities) and connecting patients to resources within healthcare organizations (eg, social work support, patient navigation) and with community organizations (eg, food banks, housing assistance programs). Screening for social needs is the first step to identifying those who need additional support and is increasingly recognized as a necessary component of high-quality cancer care delivery. Despite evidence about the relationship between social needs and cancer outcomes and the abundance of screening tools, the implementation of social needs screening remains a challenge, and little is known regarding the adoption, reach, and sustainability of social needs screening in routine clinical practice. We present data on the adoption and implementation of social needs screening at two large academic cancer centers and discuss three challenges associated with implementing evidence-based social needs screening in clinical practice: (1) identifying an optimal approach for administering social needs screening in oncology care, (2) adequately addressing identified unmet needs with resources and support, and (3) coordinating social needs screening between oncology and primary care.

Institution-Wide Retreats Foster Organizational Learning and Action at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Providing safe and informed healthcare for sexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals with cancer is stymied by the lack of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data reliably available in health records and by insufficient training for staff. Approaches that support institutional learning, especially around sensitive topics, are essential for hospitals seeking to improve practices impacting patient safety and research. We engineered annual institutional retreats to identify and unify stakeholders, promote awareness of gaps and needs, identify initiatives, minimize redundant projects, and coordinate efforts that promote improvements in SGM cancer care, education, and research. The 2022 and 2023 retreats employed a 4-h hybrid format allowing virtual and in-person engagement. Retreat organizers facilitated small-group discussions for brainstorming among participants. We performed descriptive statistics from retreat evaluations. The retreats engaged 104 attendees from distinct departments and roles. Participants expressed robust satisfaction, commending the retreat organization and content quality. Notably, the first retreat yielded leadership endorsement and funding for a Quality Improvement pilot to standardize SOGI data collection and clinical staff training. The second retreat provided a platform for updates on focused efforts across the institution and for receiving direction regarding national best practices for SGM care and research. We report the processes and outcomes of institution-wide retreats, which served as a platform for identifying gaps in organizational healthcare practices and research for SGM individuals with cancer. The strategies described herein may be readily scaled at other cancer hospitals seeking to learn and enact system-wide practice changes that support the needs of SGM patients and families.

Integration of a nurse practitioner and physician associate leadership structure within an academic cancer center.

BACKGROUND: Nurse practitioners and physician associates are an essential part of the multidisciplinary cancer care team with expanding and evolving roles within cancer specialties. LOCAL PROBLEM: As these clinicians flourish, a parallel need for leadership rises to optimize scope of practice, mentor, and retain this crucial workforce. The purpose of this quality improvement project was to development a nurse practitioner and physician associate leadership structure within an academic cancer center. METHODS: Development of this nurse practitioner and physician associate leadership structure was guided by transformational leadership theory. In collaboration with nursing, business, and physician leadership, a quad structure was supported. INTERVENTIONS: Implementation of a leadership structure included the establishment of eight team leaders and two managers. These leaders identified multiple opportunities for improvement including improved communications, offload of nonbillable work, development of incentive programs, provision of equipment, specialty practice alignment, hematology/oncology fellowship, and professional development. RESULTS: Overall, a nurse practitioner and physician associate leadership structure allowed for representation across the cancer center. Such inclusion supported multiple quality improvement projects developed in partnership with nursing, business, and physician leaders. Cumulatively, these interventions yielded efficient workflows and expansion of services. Consistent with reported evidence, these efforts contributed to nurse practitioner and physician associate retention as well as improved job satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced practice leadership is essential to recruiting, developing, supporting, and retaining nurse practitioner and physician assistant colleagues in cancer care.

Advanced prescription of injectable anticancer drugs: Safety assessment in a European Comprehensive Cancer Centre using the risk matrix approach.

AIMS: The purpose of this work was to assess failures in the advanced prescription of parenteral anticancer agents in an adult day oncology care unit with more than 100 patients per day. METHODS: An a priori descriptive analysis was carried out by using the risk matrix approach. After defining the scope in a multidisciplinary meeting, we determined at each step the failure modes (FMs), their effects (E) and their associated causes (C). A severity score (S) was assigned to all effects and a probability of occurrence (O) to all causes. These S and O indicators, were used to obtain a criticality index (CI) matrix. We assessed the risk control (RC) of each failure in order to define a residual criticality index (rCI) matrix. RESULTS: During risk analysis, 14 FMs were detected, and 61 scenarios were identified considering all possible effects and causes. Nine situations (15%) were highlighted with the maximum CI, 18 (30%) with a medium CI, and 34 (55%) with a negligible CI. Nevertheless, among all these critical situations, only three (5%) had an rCI to process (i.e., missed dose adjustment, multiple prescriptions and abnormal biology data); the others required monitoring only. Clinicians' and pharmacists' knowledge of these critical situations enables them to manage the associated risks. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced prescription of injectable anticancer drugs appears to be a safe practice for patients when combined with risk management. The major risks identified concerned missed dose adjustment, prescription duplication and lack of consideration for abnormal biology data.

Dominant Worldviews, Institutional, and Contextual Factors Affecting Cancer Care: Evidence From an Institutional Ethnonursing Study in Nigeria.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer remains a significant health burden in Nigeria and requires the efforts of all stakeholders to address it. Little is known about how the worldviews of Nigerian patients with cancer and other institutional factors affect cancer management in Nigeria. This paper draws evidence from an ethnonursing study conducted in a Nigerian cancer care setting. METHOD: This study adopted a qualitative design using an ethnonursing approach. The study was conducted in one of the primary cancer treatment centers owned by the federal government of Nigeria. Data collection was conducted using participant observation, interviews, and field notes. Data collected were analyzed using NVivo 12 and presented as categories and sub-categories. RESULTS: Analysis yielded two themes and seven sub-themes. The major themes included (1) dominant worldview and (2) institutional/contextual factors. Participants attributed life, living, and death as being controlled by a supreme being. Cancer care was constrained by unfavorable institutional factors such as lack of equipment, staffing, and intensified workload. DISCUSSION: Cancer institutions should provide more cancer care infrastructure that will facilitate the work of nurses and other health care workers. There should be an enabling environment that would attract and retain nurses in the cancer wards. The hospital environment should be made conducive for the cancer care providers, patients with cancer, and their relatives.

A framework for building comprehensive cancer center's capacity for bidirectional engagement.

PURPOSE: Community engagement has benefits for cancer centers' work and for its researchers. This study examined the experiences and perceptions of community engagement by members of the Case Comprehensive Cancer Center (Case CCC) to create and implement a framework to meet the needs of the entire cancer center. METHODS: This study included three phases: 1) Semi-structured interviews with 12 researchers from a basic science program to identify needs and suggestions for the support of community engagement; 2) Preliminary interview results informed the development of a survey of 86 cancer center members' about their awareness of and readiness to integrate community outreach and engagement into their research; and 3) The Case CCC Office of Community Outreach and Engagement reviewed the results from phases 1 and 2 to develop and then utilize a framework of engagement opportunities. RESULTS: In the interviews and surveys, cancer center members recognized the importance of community engagement and expressed an interest in participating in COE-organized opportunities for bidirectional engagement. While participation barriers include communication issues, limited awareness of opportunities, and competing priorities, members were open to learning new skills, changing approaches, and utilizing services to facilitate engagement. The framework outlines engagement opportunities ranging from high touch, low reach to low touch, and high reach and was used to develop specific services. CONCLUSION: This study identified varying needs around community engagement using an approach aimed at understanding the perspectives of a community of scientists. Implementing the framework enables reaching scientists in different ways and facilitates scientists' recognition of and engagement with opportunities.

Impact of Cancer Care Regionalization on Patient Volume.

BACKGROUND: Cancer centers are regionalizing care to expand patient access, but the effects on patient volume are unknown. This study aimed to compare patient volumes before and after the establishment of head and neck regional care centers (HNRCCs). METHODS: This study analyzed 35,394 unique new patient visits at MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) before and after the creation of HNRCCs. Univariate regression estimated the rate of increase in new patient appointments. Geospatial analysis evaluated patient origin and distribution. RESULTS: The mean new patients per year in 2006-2011 versus 2012-2017 was 2735 ± 156 patients versus 3155 ± 207 patients, including 464 ± 78 patients at HNRCCs, reflecting a 38.4 % increase in overall patient volumes. The rate of increase in new patient appointments did not differ significantly before and after HNRCCs (121.9 vs 95.8 patients/year; P = 0.519). The patients from counties near HNRCCs, showed a 210.8 % increase in appointments overall, 33.8 % of which were at an HNRCC. At the main campus exclusively, the shift in regional patients to HNRCCs coincided with a lower rate of increase in patients from the MDACC service area (33.7 vs. 11.0 patients/year; P = 0.035), but the trend was toward a greater increase in out-of-state patients (25.7 vs. 40.3 patients/year; P = 0.299). CONCLUSIONS: The creation of HNRCCs coincided with stable increases in new patient volume, and a sizeable minority of patients sought care at regional centers. Regional patients shifted to the HNRCCs, and out-of-state patient volume increased at the main campus, optimizing access for both local and out-of-state patients.

Organizace a cinnost multidisciplinárního týmu v onkologii / Organization and activity of a multidisciplinary team in oncology

Multidisciplinární péce je povazována za osvedcený postup pri plánování lécby a péci o pacienty s rakovinou. Je to integrovaný týmový prístup ke zdravotní péci, v nemz lékarstí a dalsí zdravotnictí pracovníci zvazují vsechny relevantní moznosti lécby a spolecne vypracovávají individuální plán lécby a péce o pacienta. Zahrnuje diskusi vsech príslusných zdravotnických pracovníku o moznostech a spolecné rozhodování o lécbe a plánech podpurné péce s prihlédnutím k osobním preferencím pacienta. Tento doporucený postup poskytuje rámec a soubor nástroju na podporu zavedení multidisciplinárních týmu v onkologii lokálne. Nenavrhuje univerzální prístup k multidisciplinárním onkologickým týmum, spíse rámcove navrhuje nekolik základních principu, které doplnuje o detailnejsí návod, jak multidisciplinární tým zavést, co je jeho náplní a jak jej udrzet. Mezi výhody multidisciplinárního prístupu k péci patrí: Pro pacienty: delsí prezití u pacientu, kterí jsou vedeni multidisciplinárním týmem; kratsí doba od stanovení diagnózy k zahájení lécby; vetsí pravdepodobnost, ze se jim dostane péce v souladu s klinickými doporucenými postupy, vcetne psychosociální podpory; lepsí prístup k informacím; vetsí spokojenost s lécbou a pécí. Pro zdravotnické pracovníky: lepsí péce o pacienty a výsledky díky vypracování dohodnutého lécebného plánu; zefektivnení lécebných postupu a snízení duplicity sluzeb; lepsí koordinace péce; vzdelávací prílezitosti pro zdravotnické pracovníky; zlepsení dusevní pohody zdravotnických pracovníku.

Multidisciplinary care is considered best practice in the treatment planning and care of cancer patients. It is an integrated team approach to healthcare in which doctors and other healthcare professionals consider all relevant treatment options and together develop an individualized treatment and care plan for the patient. It involves discussion by all relevant healthcare professionals about options and shared decision-making about treatment and supportive care plans, taking into account the patient's personal preferences. This guideline provides a framework and toolkit to support the implementation of multidisciplinary teams in oncology locally. It does not propose a universal approach to multidisciplinary oncology teams, rather, it proposes several basic principles as a framework, which it supplements with more detailed instructions on how to establish a multidisciplinary team, what its content is, and how to maintain it. Benefits of a multidisciplinary approach to care include: For patients: longer survival in patients who are managed by a multidisciplinary team; shorter time from diagnosis to initiation of treatment; more likely to receive care consistent with clinical guidelines, including psychosocial support; better access to information; greater satisfaction with treatment and care. For healthcare professionals: better patient care and outcomes through the development of an agreed treatment plan; streamlining treatment procedures and reducing duplication of services; better coordination of care; educational opportunities for healthcare professionals; improving the mental well-being of healthcare workers.

[The oncology residency program in French overseas]. / L'internat d'oncologie en outre-mer français.

Once his specialty has been chosen, and according to his ranking, the new resident in oncology decides on the subdivision in which he wishes to be among the 28 existing subdivisions. Two concern overseas departments and territories: the Antilles-Guyana subdivision and the Indian Ocean subdivision. The oncology residency has its own particularities because of the demographic characteristics and epidemiology of cancers in these areas, but also because of a particular organization of care and university teaching. The training of residents in these subdivisions is little known. Over the past ten years, most of the residents have been trained in oncology-radiotherapy in these subdivisions and some of them in medical oncology. The residency program is however experiencing a revival in terms of university education in parallel with the development of technical and human equipment in the centres of these regions. This article details the training of residents in oncology in French overseas territories by contextualizing it with epidemiological data and the characteristics of the oncology care offer in these territories.