Identifying priority areas to support primary care engagement in breast cancer survivorship care: A Delphi study.

INTRODUCTION: Existing approaches in cancer survivorship care delivery have proven to be insufficient to engage primary care. This study aimed to identify stakeholder-informed priorities to improve primary care engagement in breast cancer survivorship care. METHODS: Experts in U.S. cancer survivorship care delivery were invited to participate in a 4-round online Delphi panel to identify and evaluate priorities for defining and fostering primary care's engagement in breast cancer survivorship. Panelists were asked to identify and then assess (ratings of 1-9) the importance and feasibility of priority items to support primary care engagement in survivorship. Panelists were asked to review the group results and reevaluate the importance and feasibility of each item, aiming to reach consensus. RESULTS: Respondent panelists (n = 23, response rate 57.5%) identified 31 priority items to support survivorship care. Panelists consistently rated three items most important (scored 9) but with uncertain feasibility (scored 5-6). These items emphasized the need to foster connections and improve communication between primary care and oncology. Panelists reached consensus on four items evaluated as important and feasible: (1) educating patients on survivorship, (2) enabling screening reminders and monitoring alerts in the electronic medical record, (3) identifying patient resources for clinicians to recommend, and (4) distributing accessible reference guides of common breast cancer drugs. CONCLUSION: Role clarity and communication between oncology and primary care were rated as most important; however, uncertainty about feasibility remains. These findings indicate that cross-disciplinary capacity building to address feasibility issues may be needed to make the most important priority items actionable in primary care.

Population health in primary care.

Population health in the United States continues to lag behind other wealthy nations. Primary care has the promise of enhancing population health; however, the implementation of a population health approach within primary care deserves further consideration. Clinicians and staff from a national sample of 10 innovative primary care practices participated in a working conference to reflect upon population health approaches in primary care. A series of small- and large-group discussions were recorded, transcribed, and coded through an immersion/crystallization approach. Two prominent themes emerged: (1) Transitioning to a population health focus generally develops through stages, with early implementation focusing on risk stratification and later, more advanced stages focusing on community health; and (2) Several inherent barriers confront implementation of a population health approach, including tensions with patient-centered care, and limitations of health information technology. A broader conceptualization of population health in terms of community health could more effectively allow partnerships among primary care, large health care systems, public health organizations, patients, and other partners in the community.

Adapting and implementing breast cancer follow-up in primary care: protocol for a mixed methods hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Advances in detection and treatment for breast cancer have led to an increase in the number of individuals managing significant late and long-term treatment effects. Primary care has a role in caring for patients with a history of cancer, yet there is little guidance on how to effectively implement survivorship care evidence into primary care delivery. METHODS: This protocol describes a multi-phase, mixed methods, stakeholder-driven research process that prioritizes actionable, evidence-based primary care improvements to enhance breast cancer survivorship care by integrating implementation and primary care transformation frameworks: the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework and the Practice Change Model (PCM). Informed by depth interviews and a four round Delphi panel with diverse stakeholders from primary care and oncology, we will implement and evaluate an iterative clinical intervention in a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized design in twenty-six primary care practices. Multi-component implementation strategies will include facilitation, audit and feedback, and learning collaboratives. Ongoing data collection and analysis will be performed to optimize adoption of the intervention. The primary clinical outcome to test effectiveness is comprehensive breast cancer follow-up care. Implementation will be assessed using mixed methods to explore how organizational and contextual variables affect adoption, implementation, and early sustainability for provision of follow-up care, symptom, and risk management activities at six- and 12-months post implementation. DISCUSSION: Study findings are poised to inform development of scalable, high impact intervention processes to enhance long-term follow-up care for patients with a history of breast cancer in primary care. If successful, next steps would include working with a national primary care practice-based research network to implement a national dissemination study. Actionable activities and processes identified could also be applied to development of organizational and care delivery interventions for follow-up care for other cancer sites. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on June 2, 2022: NCT05400941.

Oncologists' Perspectives on Cancer Survivorship: What Role Should Primary Care Play?

Background: Despite calls for an enhanced role for primary care for individuals with a history of cancer, primary medical care's role in adult survivorship care continues to be marginal.Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with 8 medical oncologists with interest in cancer survivorship from 7 National Cancer Institute designated comprehensive cancer centers to understand perspectives on the role of primary care in cancer survivorship.Results: Two salient overarching thematic patterns emerged. (1) Oncologist's perspectives diverge on if, how, and when primary care clinicians should be involved in survivorship, ranging from involvement of primary care throughout treatment to a standardized hand-off years post-therapy. (2) Oncologist's lack understanding about primary care's expertise and subsequent value in survivorship care.Conclusion: As oncology continues to be overwhelmed by rising numbers of aging cancer survivors with multi-morbidities, NCI-designated cancer centers should take a leadership role in integrating primary care engaged cancer survivorship.

Understanding the Impact of Medicaid-Serving Primary Care Team Functioning and Clinical Context on Cancer Care Treatment Quality: Implications for Addressing Structural Inequities.

PURPOSE: Primary care factors related to Medicaid enrollees' receipt of guideline concordant cancer treatment is understudied; however, team structure and processes likely affect care disparities. We explore Medicaid-serving primary care teams functioning within multiteam systems to understand performance variations in quality of breast and colorectal cancer care. METHODS: We conducted a comparative case study, using critical case sampling of primary care clinics in New Jersey, to provide maximum variation on clinic-level care performance rates (Medicaid enrollees' receipt of guideline-concordant treatment). Site evaluations, conducted from 2019 to 2020, included observation (2-3 days) and interviews. Using a multistep analytic process, we explored contextual factors within primary care that may contribute to cancer care performance variations. RESULTS: We identified performance variations stemming from adaptations of multiteam system inputs and processes on the basis of contextual factors (ie, business model, clinic culture). Team 1 (average performer), part of a multisite safety-net clinic system, mainly teamed outside their organization, relying on designated roles, protocol-based care, and quality improvement informed by within-team metrics. Team 2 (high performer), part of a for-profit health system, remained mission-driven to improve urban health, teamed exclusively with internal teams through electronically enabled information exchange and health system-wide quality improvement efforts. Team 3 (low performer), a physician-owned private practice with minimal teaming, accepted Medicaid enrollees to diversify their payer mix and relied on referral-based care with limited consideration of social barriers. CONCLUSION: Primary care team structures and processes variations may (in part) explain performance variations. Future research aiming to improve care quality for Medicaid populations should consider primary care teams' capacity and context in relation to composite teams to support care quality improvements in subsequent prospective trials.

A Novel Mixed Methods Approach Combining Geospatial Mapping and Qualitative Inquiry to Identify Multilevel Policy Targets: The Focused Rapid Assessment Process (fRAP) Applied to Cancer Survivorship.

Multi-level perspectives across communities, medical systems and policy environments are needed, but few methods are available for health services researchers with limited resources. We developed a mixed method health policy approach, the focused Rapid Assessment Process (fRAP), that is designed to uncover multi-level modifiable barriers and facilitators contributing to public health issues. We illustrate with a study applying fRAP to the issue of cancer survivorship care. Through this multi-level investigation we identified two major modifiable areas impacting high-quality cancer survivorship care: 1) the importance of cancer survivorship guidelines/data, 2) the need for improved oncology-primary care relationships. This article contributes to the mixed methods literature by coupling geospatial mapping to qualitative rapid assessment to efficiently identify policy change targets.

Substance use disorder approaches in US primary care clinics with national reputations as workforce innovators.

BACKGROUND: Over the last decade, primary care clinics in the United States have responded both to national policies encouraging clinics to support substance use disorders (SUD) service expansion and to regulations aiming to curb the opioid epidemic. OBJECTIVE: To characterize approaches to SUD service expansion in primary care clinics with national reputations as workforce innovators. METHODS: Comparative case studies were conducted to characterize different approaches among 12 primary care clinics purposively and iteratively recruited from a national registry of workforce innovators. Observational field notes and qualitative interviews from site visits were coded and analysed to identify and characterize clinic attributes. RESULTS: Codes describing clinic SUD expansion approaches emerged from our analysis. Clinics were characterized as: avoidant (n = 3), contemplative (n = 5) and responsive (n = 4). Avoidant clinics were resistant to planning SUD service expansion; had no or few on-site behavioural health staff; and lacked on-site medication treatment (previously termed medication-assisted therapy) waivered providers. Contemplative clinics were planning or had partially implemented SUD services; members expressed uncertainties about expansion; had co-located behavioural healthcare providers, but no on-site medication treatment waivered and prescribing providers. Responsive clinics had fully implemented SUD; members used non-judgmental language about SUD services; had both co-located SUD behavioural health staff trained in SUD service provision and waivered medication treatment physicians and/or a coordinated referral pathway. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to support SUD service expansion should tailor implementation supports based on specific clinic training and capacity building needs. Future work should inform the adaption of evidence-based practices that are responsive to resource constraints to optimize SUD treatment access.

Primary care clinics in the US have been encouraged to expand addiction services to increase treatment access and respond to the opioid epidemic. This study uses structured observations and depth interviews to assess and compare how primary care clinics with innovative workforces have responded to the growing need for substance use disorder treatment. Each of the clinics studied represents a 'case.' We systematically compared cases to understand how and if addiction services were expanded. Twelve clinic 'cases' were coded and characterized based on a continuum of receptivity ranging from avoidant (i.e., resistant), contemplative (i.e., organization members plan to implement change) and responsive (i.e. expansions implemented). Our analysis characterized three clinics as avoidant to expanding addiction services reporting no plans to respond to calls to expand addiction services. Five clinics were characterized as contemplative, meaning they recognized the need but still had reservations and concerns about the expansion. Four clinics were characterized as responsive to addiction service expansion and had several organizational-wide strategies to assess, intervene and treat patients with addictions. Despite national and state-based policies to entice clinics to expand addiction services there was a diversity of approaches observed in clinics. Avoidant and contemplative clinics may need implementation support to build capacity for this type of delivery expansion.

Adoption of Tobacco 21: A Cross-Case Analysis of Ten US States.

Despite the recent push for Tobacco 21 legislation in the US and the national adoption of Tobacco 21, there is a paucity of data on the process of policy adoption. To explore the key factors that served as facilitators or challenges to the passage of state T21 laws that apply to the sale of all tobacco products to anyone under 21 years of age, we conducted a comparative, cross-case study in ten states that adopted Tobacco 21 between 2016 and 2019. Stakeholders from selected states were identified via snowball sampling, and interviews were conducted from November 2018 to March 2020. Three primary factors emerged as facilitators to the passage of state T21 laws: (1) increased attention on e-cigarettes as the product driving an overall increase in youth tobacco use and depiction of an "e-cigarette epidemic", (2) having at least one influential policy entrepreneur or champion, and (3) traction from other states or local municipalities passing T21 legislation. Challenges to T21's success included (1) influence of the tobacco industry, (2) the bill's low ranking among legislative priorities, and (3) controversy among advocates and policymakers over bill language. As e-cigarette rates spiked, T21 bills became legislative priorities, traction from other successful efforts mounted, and ultimately, the tobacco industry flipped from opposing to supporting T21 laws. Despite these favorable headwinds, advocates struggled increasingly to pass bills with ideal policy language.

Leading Innovative Practice: Leadership Attributes in LEAP Practices.

Policy Points An onslaught of policies from the federal government, states, the insurance industry, and professional organizations continually requires primary care practices to make substantial changes; however, ineffective leadership at the practice level can impede the dissemination and scale-up of these policies. The inability of primary care practice leadership to respond to ongoing policy demands has resulted in moral distress and clinician burnout. Investments are needed to develop interventions and educational opportunities that target a broad array of leadership attributes. CONTEXT: Over the past several decades, health care in the United States has undergone substantial and rapid change. At the heart of this change is an assumption that a more robust primary care infrastructure helps achieve the quadruple aim of improved care, better patient experience, reduced cost, and improved work life of health care providers. Practice-level leadership is essential to succeed in this rapidly changing environment. Complex adaptive systems theory offers a lens for understanding important leadership attributes. METHODS: A review of the literature on leadership from a complex adaptive system perspective identified nine leadership attributes hypothesized to support practice change: motivating others to engage in change, managing abuse of power and social influence, assuring psychological safety, enhancing communication and information sharing, generating a learning organization, instilling a collective mind, cultivating teamwork, fostering emergent leaders, and encouraging boundary spanning. Through a secondary qualitative analysis, we applied these attributes to nine practices ranking high on both a practice learning and leadership scale from the Learning from Effective Ambulatory Practice (LEAP) project to see if and how these attributes manifest in high-performing innovative practices. FINDINGS: We found all nine attributes identified from the literature were evident and seemed important during a time of change and innovation. We identified two additional attributes-anticipating the future and developing formal processes-that we found to be important. Complexity science suggests a hypothesized developmental model in which some attributes are foundational and necessary for the emergence of others. CONCLUSIONS: Successful primary care practices exhibit a diversity of strong local leadership attributes. To meet the realities of a rapidly changing health care environment, training of current and future primary care leaders needs to be more comprehensive and move beyond motivating others and developing effective teams.

Cancer Survivorship Care Roles for Primary Care Physicians.

PURPOSE: Despite a burgeoning population of cancer survivors and pending shortages of oncology services, clear definitions and systematic approaches for engaging primary care in cancer survivorship are lacking. We sought to understand how primary care clinicians perceive their role in delivering care to cancer survivors. METHODS: We conducted digitally recorded interviews with 38 clinicians in 14 primary care practices that had national reputations as workforce innovators. Interviews took place during intense case study data collection and explored clinicians' perspectives regarding their role in cancer survivorship care. We analyzed verbatim transcripts using an inductive and iterative immersion-crystallization process. RESULTS: Divergent views exist regarding primary care's role in cancer survivor care with a lack of coherence about the concept of survivorship. A few clinicians believed any follow-up care after acute cancer treatment was oncology's responsibility; however, most felt cancer survivor care was within their purview. Some primary care clinicians considered cancer survivors as a distinct population; others felt cancer survivors were like any other patient with a chronic disease. In further interpretative analysis, we discovered a deeply ingrained philosophy of whole-person care that creates a professional identity dilemma for primary care clinicians when faced with rapidly changing specialized knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: This study exposes an emerging identity crisis for primary care that goes beyond cancer survivorship care. Facilitated national conversations might help specialists and primary care develop knowledge translation platforms to support the prioritizing, integrating, and personalizing functions of primary care for patients with highly complicated issues requiring specialized knowledge.

Understanding primary care-oncology relationships within a changing healthcare environment.

BACKGROUND: Management of care transitions from primary care into and out of oncology is critical for optimal care of cancer patients and cancer survivors. There is limited understanding of existing primary care-oncology relationships within the context of the changing health care environment. METHODS: Through a comparative case study of 14 innovative primary care practices throughout the United States (U.S.), we examined relationships between primary care and oncology settings to identify attributes contributing to strengthened relationships in diverse settings. Field researchers observed practices for 10-12 days, recording fieldnotes and conducting interviews. We created a reduced dataset of all text related to primary care-oncology relationships, and collaboratively identified patterns to characterize these relationships through an inductive "immersion/crystallization" analysis process. RESULTS: Nine of the 14 practices discussed having either formal or informal primary care-oncology relationships. Nearly all formal primary care-oncology relationships were embedded within healthcare systems. The majority of private, independent practices had more informal relationships between individual primary care physicians and specific oncologists. Practices with formal relationships noted health system infrastructure that facilitates transfer of patient information and timely referrals. Practices with informal relationships described shared commitment, trust, and rapport with specific oncologists. Regardless of relationship type, challenges reported by primary care settings included lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities during cancer treatment and beyond. CONCLUSIONS: With the rapid transformation of U.S. healthcare towards system ownership of primary care practices, efforts are needed to integrate strengths of informal primary care-oncology relationships in addition to formal system driven relationships.

Shifting Implementation Science Theory to Empower Primary Care Practices.

Observers of the past 10 to 15 years have witnessed the simultaneous growth of dramatic changes in the practice of primary care and the emergence of a new field of dissemination and implementation science (D&I). Most current implementation science research in primary care assumes practices are not meeting externally derived standards and need external support to meet these demands. After a decade of initiatives, many stakeholders now question the return on their investments. Overall improvements in quality metrics, utilization cost savings, and patient experience have been less than anticipated. While recently conducting a research project in primary care practices, we unexpectedly discovered 3 practices that profoundly shifted our thinking about the sources and directionality of practice change and the underlying assumptions of D&I. Inspired by these practices-along with systems thinking, complexity theory, action research, and the collaborative approaches of community-based participatory research-we propose a reimagining of D&I theory to empower practices. We shift the emphasis regarding the source and direction of change from outside-in to inside-out Such a shift has the potential to open a new frontier in the science of dissemination and implementation and inform better health policy.

The Politics of Primary Care Expansion: Lessons From Cancer Survivorship and Substance Abuse.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this study is to understand the perspectives of primary care innovators treating patient populations not traditionally considered to be within the purview of primary care. Data were obtained from the 2015 Working Conference for PCMH (Patient-Centered Medical Home) Innovation funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The conference convened representatives from 10 innovative primary care practices and content experts to discuss experiences with integrating care for two nontraditional populations: patients with substance abuse issues and cancer survivors. Transcripts of the conference, one-on-one interviews, and written summaries of practice innovations were coded in NVivo (QSR International) and analyzed by means of an immersion/crystallization approach to identifying thematic patterns. Our study findings suggest that the politics surrounding entrenched professional identities contributed to barriers faced by conference participants in their efforts to provide innovative care for these nontraditional populations. Specifically, obstacles surfaced in relation to sharing patients across disciplinary boundaries, which resulted in issues of possessiveness, a questioning of provider qualifications, and a lack of interprofessional trust. Though support is increasing for primary care expansion and care integration, policy change may precede the identity transformations necessary for medical practitioners to embrace new primary care-centered models. For this reason, it is important that the formation and entrenchment of professional identities be critically considered as part of future efforts to transform primary care practice.

Creating and Sustaining Care Teams in Primary Care: Perspectives From Innovative Patient-Centered Medical Homes.

OBJECTIVE: To learn from the experiences of innovative primary care practices that have successfully developed care teams. RESEARCH DESIGN: A 2½-day working conference was convened with representatives from 10 innovative primary care practices, content experts, and researchers to discuss experiences of developing care teams. Qualitative data included observation notes, transcripts of conference sessions and interviews, and narrative summaries of innovations. Case summaries of practices and an analysis matrix were created to identify common themes. PARTICIPANTS: Ten practices known nationally for innovations in team-based care participated in the conference represented by 1 to 2 practice members. RESULTS: Two domains emerged related to creating effective teams and funding them. Participants emphasized the importance of making practice values explicit and involving everyone in the change process, standardizing routine processes, and mitigating resistance. They also highlighted that team-based care adds comprehensiveness, not necessarily productivity. They, thus, highlighted the need for a long-term financial vision, including resourcefulness and alternate funding. CONCLUSIONS: Team-based care is possible and valuable in primary care. It is difficult to develop and sustain, however, and requires dedicated time and resources. The challenges these highly motivated practices described raise the question of feasibility for more average practices in the current funding environment.

A mixed-methods analysis of the capacity of the Patient-Centered Medical Home to implement care coordination services for cancer survivors.

There are currently 15.5 million cancer survivors in USA who are increasingly relying on primary care providers for their care. Patient-Centered Medical Homes (PCMHs) have the potential to meet the unique needs of cancer survivors; but, few studies have examined PCMH attributes as potential resources for delivering survivorship care. This study assesses the current care coordination infrastructure in advanced PCMHs, known to be innovative, and explores their capacity to provide cancer survivorship care. We conducted comparative case studies of a purposive sample (n = 9) of PCMHs to examine current care coordination infrastructure and capacity through a mixed- methods analysis. Data included qualitative interviews, quantitative surveys, and fieldnotes collected during 10- to 12-day onsite observations at each practice. Case studies included practices in five states with diverse business models and settings. Eight of the nine practices had National Committee for Quality Assurance Level 3 PCMH recognition. No practices had implemented a systematic approach to cancer survivorship care. We found all practices had a range of electronic population health management tools, care coordinator roles in place for chronic conditions, and strategies or protocols for tracking and managing complex disease groups. We identified potential capacity, as well as barriers, to provide cancer survivorship care using existing care coordination infrastructure developed for other chronic conditions. This existing infrastructure suggests the potential to translate care coordination elements within primary care settings to accelerate the implementation of systematic survivorship care.

Barriers and Facilitators to Expanding Roles of Medical Assistants in Patient-Centered Medical Homes (PCMHs).

BACKGROUND: Many primary care practices participating in patient-centered medical home (PCMH) transformation initiatives are expanding the work roles of their medical assistants (MAs). Little is known about attitudes of MAs or barriers and facilitators to these role changes. METHODS: Secondary data analysis of qualitative cross-case comparison study of 15 New Jersey primary care practices participating in a PCMH project during 2012 to 2013. Observation field notes and in-depth and key informant interviews (with physicians, office managers, staff and care coordinators) were iteratively analyzed using grounded theory. RESULTS: MA roles and responsibilities changed from a mostly reactive role, completing tasks dependent on physician orders during the patient visit and facilitating patient flow through the office, to a more proactive one, conducting previsit planning, engaging in the overall care for patients, and assisting with population management. MAs differed in their attitudes about increased responsibilities, with some welcoming the opportunity to take on expanded roles, others resenting their increased responsibilities, and some expressing insufficient understanding regarding why new tasks and procedures were being implemented. Major barriers to MA role shifts included 1) insufficient understanding of the PCMH concept, 2) lack of time for added responsibilities, 3) additional workload without additional compensation, 4) disparate levels of medical knowledge and training, 5) reluctance of clinicians to delegate tasks, 6) uncertainty in making new workflow changes routine, 7) staff turnover, and 8) change fatigue. MAs were more positive about their role shifts when they 1) understood how their responsibilities fit within broader PCMH practice transformation goals; 2) received formal training in new tasks; 3) had detailed protocols and standing orders; 4) initiated role changes with small, achievable goals; 5) had open communication with clinicians and practice leaders; and 5) received additional compensation or paths to career advancement. CONCLUSIONS: Practice leaders need to be conscious of obstacles when they increase expectations of MAs, and they must be willing to invest time and resources into developing their MA workforce. An environment that allows open dialog with MAs and rewards and compensation that recognizes their increased efforts will help make expansion of MA roles occur more smoothly and efficiently.

Cancer Survivorship Care in Advanced Primary Care Practices: A Qualitative Study of Challenges and Opportunities.

Importance: Despite a decade of effort by national stakeholders to bring cancer survivorship to the forefront of primary care, there is little evidence to suggest that primary care has begun to integrate comprehensive services to manage the care of long-term cancer survivors. Objective: To explain why primary care has not begun to integrate comprehensive cancer survivorship services. Design, Setting, and Participants: Comparative case study of 12 advanced primary care practices in the United States recruited from March 2015 to February 2017. Practices were selected from a national registry of 151 workforce innovators compiled for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Practices were recruited to include diversity in policy context and organizational structure. Researchers conducted 10 to 12 days of ethnographic data collection in each practice, including interviews with practice personnel and patient pathways with cancer survivors. Fieldnotes, transcripts, and practice documents were analyzed within and across cases to identify salient themes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Description of cancer survivorship care delivery in advanced patient-centered medical homes, including identification of barriers and promotional factors related to that care. Results: The 12 practices came from multiple states and policy contexts and had a mix of clinicians trained in family or internal medicine. All but 3 were recognized as National Committee on Quality Assurance level 3 patient-centered medical homes. None of the practices provided any type of comprehensive cancer survivorship services. Three interdependent explanatory factors emerged: the absence of a recognized, distinct clinical category of survivorship in primary care; a lack of actionable information to treat this patient population; and current information systems unable to support survivorship care. Conclusions and Relevance: To increase the potential for primary care transformation efforts to integrate survivorship services into routine care, survivorship must become a recognized clinical category with actionable care plans supported by a functional information system infrastructure.

Optimizing the Care Coordinator Role in Primary Care: A Qualitative Case Study.

BACKGROUND: Care coordinators (CCs) are increasingly employed in primary care as a means to improve health care quality, but little research examines the process by which CCs are integrated into practices. This case study provides an in-depth examination of this process and efforts to optimize the role. METHODS: Two CCs' work was observed and assessed, and attempts were made to optimize the role using workflow modeling and "Plan-Do-Study-Act" cycles. Rolling qualitative analyses of field notes from key informant interviews and team meetings were conducted using iterative cycles of "immersion/crystallization" to identify emerging themes. RESULTS: Expected roles of CCs included case management of high-risk patients, transitions of care, and population management. Case management was the least difficult to implement; transition management required more effort; and population management met with individual and institutional obstacles and was difficult to address. CONCLUSIONS: The process by which CCs are integrated into primary care is not well understood and will require more attention to optimally use this role to improve health care quality. Understanding aspects of CCs' roles that are the least and most difficult to integrate may provide a starting place for developing best practices for implementation of this emerging role.

Learning the landscape: implementation challenges of primary care innovators around cancer survivorship care.

PURPOSE: This study describes the experiences of early implementers of primary care-focused cancer survivorship delivery models. METHODS: Snowball sampling was used to identify innovators. Twelve participants (five cancer survivorship primary care innovators and seven content experts) attended a working conference focused on cancer survivorship population strategies and primary care transformation. Data included meeting discussion transcripts/field notes, transcribed in-depth innovator interviews, and innovators' summaries of care models. We used a multistep immersion/crystallization analytic approach, guided by a primary care organizational change model. RESULTS: Innovative practice models included: (1) a consultative model in a primary care setting; (2) a primary care physician (PCP)-led, blended consultative/panel-based model in an oncology setting; (3) an oncology nurse navigator in a primary care practice; and (4) two subspecialty models where PCPs in a general medical practice dedicated part of their patient panel to cancer survivors. Implementation challenges included (1) lack of key stakeholder buy-in; (2) practice resources allocated to competing (non-survivorship) change efforts; and (3) competition with higher priority initiatives incentivized by payers. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer survivorship delivery models are potentially feasible in primary care; however, significant barriers to widespread implementation exist. Implementation efforts would benefit from increasing the awareness and potential value-add of primary care-focused strategies to address survivors' needs. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Current models of primary care-based cancer survivorship care may not be sustainable. Innovative strategies to provide quality care to this growing population of survivors need to be developed and integrated into primary care settings.