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.

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.

Implementation of a provider-focused intervention for maximizing human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake in young cancer survivors receiving follow-up care in pediatric oncology practices: protocol for a cluster-randomized trial of the HPV PROTECT intervention.

BACKGROUND: Childhood cancer survivors are at high risk for developing new cancers (such as cervical and anal cancer) caused by persistent infection with the human papillomavirus (HPV). HPV vaccination is effective in preventing the infections that lead to these cancers, but HPV vaccine uptake is low among young cancer survivors. Lack of a healthcare provider recommendation is the most common reason that cancer survivors fail to initiate the HPV vaccine. Strategies that are most successful in increasing HPV vaccine uptake in the general population focus on enhancing healthcare provider skills to effectively recommend the vaccine, and reducing barriers faced by the young people and their parents in receiving the vaccine. This study will evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of an evidence-based healthcare provider-focused intervention (HPV PROTECT) adapted for use in pediatric oncology clinics, to increase HPV vaccine uptake among cancer survivors 9 to 17 years of age. METHODS: This study uses a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation approach. We will test the effectiveness of the HPV PROTECT intervention using a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial across a multi-state sample of pediatric oncology clinics. We will evaluate implementation (provider perspectives regarding intervention feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness in the pediatric oncology setting, provider fidelity to intervention components and change in provider HPV vaccine-related knowledge and practices [e.g., providing vaccine recommendations, identifying and reducing barriers to vaccination]) using a mixed methods approach. DISCUSSION: This multisite trial will address important gaps in knowledge relevant to the prevention of HPV-related malignancies in young cancer survivors by testing the effectiveness of an evidence-based provider-directed intervention, adapted for the pediatric oncology setting, to increase HPV vaccine initiation in young cancer survivors receiving care in pediatric oncology clinics, and by procuring information regarding intervention delivery to inform future implementation efforts. If proven effective, HPV PROTECT will be readily disseminable for testing in the larger pediatric oncology community to increase HPV vaccine uptake in cancer survivors, facilitating protection against HPV-related morbidities for this vulnerable population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04469569, prospectively registered on July 14, 2020.

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.

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.

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.

The Anatomy and Physiology of Teaming in Cancer Care Delivery: A Conceptual Framework.

Care coordination challenges for patients with cancer continue to grow as expanding treatment options, multimodality treatment regimens, and an aging population with comorbid conditions intensify demands for multidisciplinary cancer care. Effective teamwork is a critical yet understudied cornerstone of coordinated cancer care delivery. For example, comprehensive lung cancer care involves a clinical "team of teams"-or clinical multiteam system (MTS)-coordinating decisions and care across specialties, providers, and settings. The teamwork processes within and between these teams lay the foundation for coordinated care. Although the need to work as a team and coordinate across disciplinary, organizational, and geographic boundaries increases, evidence identifying and improving the teamwork processes underlying care coordination and delivery among the multiple teams involved remains sparse. This commentary synthesizes MTS structure characteristics and teamwork processes into a conceptual framework called the cancer MTS framework to advance future cancer care delivery research addressing evidence gaps in care coordination. Included constructs were identified from published frameworks, discussions at the 2016 National Cancer Institute-American Society of Clinical Oncology Teams in Cancer Care Workshop, and expert input. A case example in lung cancer provided practical grounding for framework refinement. The cancer MTS framework identifies team structure variables and teamwork processes affecting cancer care delivery, related outcomes, and contextual variables hypothesized to influence coordination within and between the multiple clinical teams involved. We discuss how the framework might be used to identify care delivery research gaps, develop hypothesis-driven research examining clinical team functioning, and support conceptual coherence across studies examining teamwork and care coordination and their impact on cancer outcomes.

Identifying Cancer Care Team Competencies to Improve Care Coordination in Multiteam Systems: A Modified Delphi Study.

PURPOSE: Identifying nontechnical, teamwork competencies (knowledge, skills, and attitudes) underlying coordination within and across the network of teams-or multiteam system (MTS) involved in cancer care is foundational to optimizing high-quality cancer care. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group of cancer care stakeholders refined an initial list of competency statements during three rounds of a web-based modified Delphi survey. RESULTS: Panelists reached consensus on a final list of four domains and 20 associated team-based competencies important for effective coordination in cancer care MTS. CONCLUSION: This study provides an initial foundation for testing, modifying, measuring and evaluating the impact of identified competencies on care coordination, outcomes, and costs, for people being screened, treated, or surviving cancer.

Cognitive testing of tobacco use items for administration to patients with cancer and cancer survivors in clinical research.

BACKGROUND: To the authors' knowledge, there are currently no standardized measures of tobacco use and secondhand smoke exposure in patients diagnosed with cancer, and this gap hinders the conduct of studies examining the impact of tobacco on cancer treatment outcomes. The objective of the current study was to evaluate and refine questionnaire items proposed by an expert task force to assess tobacco use. METHODS: Trained interviewers conducted cognitive testing with cancer patients aged ≥21 years with a history of tobacco use and a cancer diagnosis of any stage and organ site who were recruited at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. Iterative rounds of testing and item modification were conducted to identify and resolve cognitive issues (comprehension, memory retrieval, decision/judgment, and response mapping) and instrument navigation issues until no items warranted further significant modification. RESULTS: Thirty participants (6 current cigarette smokers, 1 current cigar smoker, and 23 former cigarette smokers) were enrolled from September 2014 to February 2015. The majority of items functioned well. However, qualitative testing identified wording ambiguities related to cancer diagnosis and treatment trajectory, such as "treatment" and "surgery"; difficulties with lifetime recall; errors in estimating quantities; and difficulties with instrument navigation. Revisions to item wording, format, order, response options, and instructions resulted in a questionnaire that demonstrated navigational ease as well as good question comprehension and response accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: The Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ) can be used as a standardized item set to accelerate the investigation of tobacco use in the cancer setting. Cancer 2016;122:1728-34. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Reviewing cancer care team effectiveness.

PURPOSE: The management of cancer varies across its type, stage, and natural history. This necessitates involvement of a variety of individuals and groups across a number of provider types. Evidence from other fields suggests that a team-based approach helps organize and optimize tasks that involve individuals and groups, but team effectiveness has not been fully evaluated in oncology-related care. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review of literature published between 2009 and 2014 to identify studies of all teams with clear membership, a comparator group, and patient-level metrics of cancer care. When those teams included two or more people with specialty training relevant to the care of patients with cancer, we called them multidisciplinary care teams (MDTs). After reviews and exclusions, 16 studies were thoroughly evaluated: two addressing screening and diagnosis, 11 addressing treatment, two addressing palliative care, and one addressing end-of-life care. The studies included a variety of end points (eg, adherence to quality indicators, patient satisfaction with care, mortality). RESULTS: Teams for screening and its follow-up improved screening use and reduced time to follow-up colonoscopy after an abnormal screen. Discussion of cases within MDTs improved the planning of therapy, adherence to recommended preoperative assessment, pain control, and adherence to medications. We did not see convincing evidence that MDTs affect patient survival or cost of care, or studies of how or which MDT processes and structures were associated with success. CONCLUSION: Further research should focus on the association between team processes and structures, efficiency in delivery of care, and mortality.

Teams and teamwork during a cancer diagnosis: interdependency within and between teams.

This article discusses the care process among three groups (primary care, radiology, and surgery) aiding a 57-year-old woman during her screening mammography and diagnosis of breast cancer. This is the first in a series of articles exploring principles and topics relevant to teams guiding clinicians involved in cancer care. The challenges demonstrated in this case illustrate how clinicians work within and between groups to deliver this first phase of cancer care. The case helps demonstrate the differences between groups and teams. Focusing on the patient and the overall process of care coordination can help move groups toward becoming teams who deliver better care by identifying and managing goals, roles, and interdependent care tasks. Care providers and researchers can use the case to consider their own work and essential aspects of teamwork needed to improve care, patient outcomes, and the evidence that supports each.

Follow-up to abnormal cancer screening tests: considering the multilevel context of care.

The call for multilevel interventions to improve the quality of follow-up to abnormal cancer screening has been out for a decade, but published work emphasizes individual approaches, and conceptualizations differ regarding the definition of levels. To investigate the scope and methods being undertaken in this focused area of follow-up to abnormal tests (breast, colon, cervical), we reviewed recent literature and grants (2007-2012) funded by the National Cancer Institute. A structured search yielded 16 grants with varying definitions of "follow-up" (e.g., completion of recommended tests, time to diagnosis); most included minority racial/ethnic group participants. Ten grants concentrated on measurement/intervention development and 13 piloted or tested interventions (categories not mutually exclusive). All studies considered patient-level factors and effects. Although some directed interventions at provider levels, few measured group characteristics and effects of interventions on the providers or levels other than the patient. Multilevel interventions are being proposed, but clarity about endpoints, definition of levels, and measures is needed. The differences in the conceptualization of levels and factors that affect practice need empirical exploration, and we need to measure their salient characteristics to advance our understanding of how context affects cancer care delivery in a changing practice and policy environment.

Introduction: Understanding and influencing multilevel factors across the cancer care continuum.

Health care in the United States is notoriously expensive while often failing to deliver the care recommended in published guidelines. There is, therefore, a need to consider our approach to health-care delivery. Cancer care is a good example for consideration because it spans the continuum of health-care issues from primary prevention through long-term survival and end-of-life care. In this monograph, we emphasize that health-care delivery occurs in a multilevel system that includes organizations, teams, and individuals. To achieve health-care delivery consistent with the Institute of Medicine's six quality aims (safety, effectiveness, timeliness, efficiency, patient-centeredness, and equity), we must influence multiple levels of that multilevel system. The notion that multiple levels of contextual influence affect behaviors through interdependent interactions is a well-established ecological view. This view has been used to analyze health-care delivery and health disparities. However, experience considering multilevel interventions in health care is much less robust. This monograph includes 13 chapters relevant to expanding the foundation of research for multilevel interventions in health-care delivery. Subjects include clinical cases of multilevel thinking in health-care delivery, the state of knowledge regarding multilevel interventions, study design and measurement considerations, methods for combining interventions, time as a consideration in the evaluation of effects, measurement of effects, simulations, application of multilevel thinking to health-care systems and disparities, and implementation of the Affordable Care Act of 2010. Our goal is to outline an agenda to proceed with multilevel intervention research, not because it guarantees improvement in our current approach to health care, but because ignoring the complexity of the multilevel environment in which care occurs has not achieved the desired improvements in care quality outlined by the Institute of Medicine at the turn of the millennium.

Implementation and spread of interventions into the multilevel context of routine practice and policy: implications for the cancer care continuum.

The promise of widespread implementation of efficacious interventions across the cancer continuum into routine practice and policy has yet to be realized. Multilevel influences, such as communities and families surrounding patients or health-care policies and organizations surrounding provider teams, may determine whether effective interventions are successfully implemented. Greater recognition of the importance of these influences in advancing (or hindering) the impact of single-level interventions has motivated the design and testing of multilevel interventions designed to address them. However, implementing research evidence from single- or multilevel interventions into sustainable routine practice and policy presents substantive challenges. Furthermore, relatively few multilevel interventions have been conducted along the cancer care continuum, and fewer still have been implemented, disseminated, or sustained in practice. The purpose of this chapter is, therefore, to illustrate and examine the concepts underlying the implementation and spread of multilevel interventions into routine practice and policy. We accomplish this goal by using a series of cancer and noncancer examples that have been successfully implemented and, in some cases, spread widely. Key concepts across these examples include the importance of phased implementation, recognizing the need for pilot testing, explicit engagement of key stakeholders within and between each intervention level; visible and consistent leadership and organizational support, including financial and human resources; better understanding of the policy context, fiscal climate, and incentives underlying implementation; explication of handoffs from researchers to accountable individuals within and across levels; ample integration of multilevel theories guiding implementation and evaluation; and strategies for long-term monitoring and sustainability.

National Cancer Institute's Small Grants Program for behavioral research in cancer control boosts careers for new investigators and fulfills NIH research priorities.

BACKGROUND: In 1998, the NIH's National Cancer Institute created the Behavioral Research Program (BRP) within the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences. A primary goal of the BRP is to stimulate and expand the field of behavioral research in cancer prevention and control. To help achieve this end, BRP created the Small Grants Program. This study examines the effect of the program on the careers of new investigators in cancer prevention and control. METHODS: A mixed-method analysis was conducted on data from a grantee survey and publication and post-award activity records. RESULTS: A majority of grantees (n=197) submitted additional research grant applications, and of these grantees, 37% (n=73) were awarded funding from the NIH and 20% (n=40) received funding at the R01 level. Grantees published research results in journals or presented at professional conferences. Of the 47 grantees who provided their curriculum vitae, 72% (n=34) published or had in press at least one article resulting from their small grant (R03) and 40% (n=19/47) published at least one article as lead author. These articles were cited a total of 134 times in 85 journals. CONCLUSIONS: By supporting investigators' initial behavioral research applications, the Small Grants Program seems to open the door to additional "independent" research opportunities and fulfills the NIH's goals of supporting early career investigators and stimulating promising new areas of cancer research.

What do women in the U.S. know about human papillomavirus and cervical cancer?

BACKGROUND: Women need to understand the link between human papillomavirus (HPV) and cervical cancer in order to make appropriate, evidence-based choices among existing prevention strategies (Pap test, HPV DNA test, and HPV vaccine). Assessment of the public's knowledge in nationally representative samples is a high priority for cervical cancer control. OBJECTIVES: To assess factors associated with U.S. women's awareness of HPV and knowledge about its link to cervical cancer. METHODS: Analyzed cross-sectional data from women ages 18 to 75 years old responding to the 2005 Health Information National Trends Survey (n = 3,076). RESULTS: Among the 40% of women who had ever heard about HPV, <50% knew it caused cervical cancer; knowledge that HPV was sexually transmitted and caused abnormal Pap tests was higher (64% and 79%, respectively). Factors associated with having heard about HPV included: younger age, being non-Hispanic White, higher educational attainment, exposure to multiple health information sources, trusting health information, regular Pap tests, awareness of changes in cervical cancer screening guidelines, and having tested positive for HPV. Accurate knowledge of the HPV-cervical cancer link was associated with abnormal Pap and positive HPV test results. CONCLUSIONS: Awareness about HPV among U.S. women is low. Having heard about HPV did not ensure accurate knowledge. Strategies for communicating accurate information about HPV transmission, prevention, and detection as well as risk and treatment of cervical cancer are needed.