Utilization of a primary care-based cancer survivorship clinic: patterns and patient characteristics.

PURPOSE: The Johns Hopkins Primary Care for Cancer Survivors (PCCS) Clinic was established in 2015 to improve care delivery for the growing cancer survivor population. We aim to describe areas of care addressed by PCCS and factors associated with clinic utilization. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of the first 301 patients' clinic visits. We used negative binomial regression models to identify factors associated with the rate of PCCS clinic visits overall and for cancer surveillance and treatment-related effects. RESULTS: There were 1702 clinic visits across 301 patients during the study period (77% female, median age 61). The most common areas of care addressed were chronic medical problems (80%), preventive health care (62%), cancer surveillance (59%), treatment-related effects (50%), and new/acute problems (46%). Multivariate analyses found that age > 60 years (IRR = 1.9, 95% CI = 1.2-3.0, p = 0.007) and higher number of comorbidities (IRR = 1.2, 95% CI = 1.1 - 1.2, p < 0.001) were associated with more overall PCCS visits, while female gender was associated with fewer visits (IRR = 0.6, CI = 0.4 - 0.8, p = 0.001). Gastrointestinal cancer type, shorter length of survivorship, male gender, and higher number of comorbidities were associated with a higher rate of visits addressing both surveillance and treatment-related effects (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The PCCS clinic addressed cancer and non-cancer related needs. Older patients and survivors with more comorbidities had significantly increased clinic utilization. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: As the cancer survivor population grows, increasing access to survivorship clinics based in primary care may help meet these patients' diverse oncologic and general health needs.

Care for Incarcerated Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has reshaped health care delivery for all patients but has distinctly affected the most marginalized people in society. Incarcerated patients are both more likely to be infected and more likely to die from COVID-19. There is a paucity of guidance for the care of incarcerated patients hospitalized with COVID-19. This article will discuss how patient privacy, adequate communication, and advance care planning are rights that incarcerated patients may not experience during this pandemic. We highlight the role of compassionate release and note how COVID-19 may affect this prospect. A number of pragmatic recommendations are made to attenuate the discrepancy in hospital care experienced by those admitted from prisons and jails. Physicians must be familiar with the relevant hospital policies, be prepared to adapt their practices in order to overcome barriers to care, such as continuous shackling, and advocate to change these policies when they conflict with patient care. Stigma, isolation, and concerns over staff safety are shared experiences for COVID-19 and incarcerated patients, but incarcerated patients have been experiencing this treatment long before the current pandemic. It is crucial that the internist demand the equitable care that we seek for all our patients.

Healthcare Professionals' Experience, Training, and Knowledge Regarding Immigration-Related Law Enforcement in Healthcare Facilities: An Online Survey.

U.S. immigration policies and enforcement can make immigrants fearful of accessing healthcare. Although current immigration policies restrict enforcement in "sensitive locations" including healthcare facilities, there are reports of enforcement actions in such settings.

The Treatment of Disability under Crisis Standards of Care: An Empirical and Normative Analysis of Change over Time during COVID-19.

CONTEXT: COVID-19 has prompted debates between bioethicists and disability activists about Crisis Standards of Care plans (CSCs), triage protocols determining the allocation of scarce lifesaving care. METHODS: We examine CSCs in 35 states and code how they approach disability, comparing states that have revised their plans over time to those that have not. We offer ethical and legal analyses evaluating to what extent changes to state policy aligned with disability rights law and ethics during the early pandemic and subsequently as stakeholder engagement grew. FINDINGS: While disability rights views were not well represented in CSCs that were not updated or updated early in the pandemic, states that revised their plans later in the pandemic were more aligned with advocate priorities. However, many CSCs continue to include concerning provisions, especially the reliance on long-term survival, which implicates considerations of both disability rights and racial justice. CONCLUSIONS: The disability rights movement's successes in influencing state triage policy should inform future CSCs and set the stage for further work on how stakeholders influence bioethics policy debates. We offer thoughts for examining bioethics policy making reflecting the processes by which activists seek policy change and the tension policy makers face between expert delegation and mediating values conflicts.

Patient Safety in Primary Care: Conceptual Meanings to the Health Care Team and Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Patient safety in primary care is an emerging priority, and experts have highlighted medications, diagnoses, transitions, referrals, and testing as key safety domains. This study aimed to (1) describe how frontline clinicians, administrators, and staff conceptualize patient safety in primary care; and (2) compare and contrast these conceptual meanings from the patient's perspective. METHODS: We conducted interviews with 101 frontline clinicians, administrators and staff, and focus groups with 65 adult patients at 10 patient-centered medical homes. We used thematic analysis to approach coding. RESULTS: Findings indicate that frontline personnel conceptualized patient safety more in terms of work functions, which reflect the grouping of tasks or responsibilities to guide how care is being delivered. Frontline personnel and patients conceptualized patient safety in largely consistent ways. DISCUSSION: Function-based conceptualizations of patient safety in primary care may better reflect frontline personnel and patients' experiences than domain-based conceptualizations, which are favored by experts.

Surgeons' Views on Shared Decision-Making.

PURPOSE: Shared decision-making (SDM) has a significant role in surgical encounters, where decisions are influenced by both clinician and patient preferences. Herein, we sought to explore surgeons' practices and beliefs about SDM. METHODS: We performed a qualitative study consisting of semi-structured individual interviews with 18 surgeons from private practice and academic surgery practices in Baltimore, Maryland. We purposively sampled participants to maximize diversity of practice type (academic vs private), surgical specialty, gender, and experience level. Interview topics included benefits and challenges to patient involvement in decision-making, communicating uncertainty to patients, and use of decision aids. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed using content analysis to identify themes. RESULTS: Surgeons were supportive of patients being involved in decision-making, particularly in cases with uncertainty about treatment options. However, surgeons identified SDM as being more appropriate for patients whom surgeons perceived as interested in decision-making involvement and for decisions in which surgeons did not have strong preferences. Additionally, surgeons reported typically presenting only a subset of available options, remaining confident in their ability to filter less suitable options based on intuitive risk assessments. Surgeons differed in their approach to making recommendations, with some guiding patients towards what they saw as the correct or optimal decision while others sought to maintain neutrality and support of the patients' chosen decision. CONCLUSIONS: Many surgeons do not believe SDM is universally optimal for every surgical decision. They instead use assessments of patient disposition or potential clinical uncertainty to guide their perceived appropriateness of using SDM.

The Johns Hopkins Primary Care for Cancer Survivor Clinic: lessons learned in our first 4 years.

PURPOSE: We established the Primary Care for Cancer Survivor (PCCS) Clinic in 2015 to address transition and care delivery challenges unique to cancer survivors. We describe the clinical program, detail patients from the first 4 years of implementation, and discuss lessons learned during the process. METHODS: We abstracted relevant patient information from the electronic medical record, administered a needs assessment survey at initial visits, and collected relative value unit (RVU) data. RESULTS: Between August 2015 and May 2019, we saw 230 PCCS patients with an increasing number of referrals yearly; nearly half were breast cancer survivors. At the initial visit, patients reported a median of 9 needs, with emotional needs most prevalent; over a third received at least one referral. PCCS patients generated higher billing codes and average RVUs compared with general patients. CONCLUSIONS: In its first 4 years, the PCCS program has thrived as a unique model of cancer survivorship centered in primary care. PCCS patients reported numerous needs, emphasizing the critical need for a multi-disciplinary approach in this population. With increasing referrals, we have considered different risk stratification and staffing models for capacity and expansion. By generating more RVUs per visit compared with the general clinic, PCCS has demonstrated financial sustainability. Buy-in from our oncology colleagues, divisional support from general medicine, along with our collaboration of like-minded internists have allowed us to be a robust program. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Models of survivorship care embedded in primary care can provide meaningful, patient-centered care for cancer survivors.

Surgeons' views on preoperative medical evaluation: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: There is substantial variation in the practice of preoperative medical evaluation (PME) and limited evidence for its benefit, which raises concerns about overuse. Surgeons have a unique role in this multidisciplinary practice. The objective of this qualitative study was to explore surgeons' practices and their beliefs about PME. METHODS: We conducted of semi-structured interviews with 18 surgeons in Baltimore, Maryland. Surgeons were purposively sampled to maximize diversity in terms of practice type (academic vs. private practice), surgical specialty, gender, and experience level. General topics included surgeons' current PME practices, perceived benefits and harms of PME, the surgical risk assessment, and potential improvements and barriers to change. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed using content analysis to identify themes, which are presented as assertions. Transcripts were re-analyzed to identify supporting and opposing instances of each assertion. RESULTS: A total of 15 themes emerged. There was wide variation in surgeons' described PME practices. Surgeons believed that PME improves surgical outcomes, but not all patients benefit. Surgeons were cognizant of the financial cost of the current system and the potential inconvenience that additional tests and office visits pose to patients. Surgeons believed that PME has minimal to no risk and that a normal PME is reassuring to them and patients. Surgeons were confident in their ability to assess surgical risk, and risk assessment by non-surgeons rarely affected their surgical decision-making. Hospital and anesthesiology requirements were a major driver of surgeons' PME practices. Surgeons did not receive much training on PME but perceived their practices to be similar to their colleagues. Surgeons believed that PME provides malpractice protection, welcomed standardization, and perceived there to be inadequate evidence to significantly change their current practice. CONCLUSIONS: Views of surgeons should be considered in future research on and reforms to the PME process.

Communication behaviors and patient autonomy in hospital care: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how hospitalized patients share decisions with physicians. METHODS: We conducted an observational study of patient-doctor communication on an inpatient medicine service among 18 hospitalized patients and 9 physicians. A research assistant (RA) approached newly hospitalized patients and their physicians before morning rounds and obtained consent. The RA audio recorded morning rounds, and then separately interviewed both patient and physician. Coding was done using integrated analysis. RESULTS: Most patients were white (61%) and half were female. Most physicians were male (66%) and of Southeast Asian descent (66%). All physicians explained the plan of care to the patients; most believed that their patient understood. However, many patients did not. Physicians rarely asked the patient for their opinion. In all those cases, the decision had been made previously by the doctors. No decisions were made with the patient. Patients sometimes disagreed. CONCLUSIONS: Shared decision-making may not be the norm in hospital care. Although physicians do explain treatment plans, many hospitalized patients do not understand enough to share in decisions. When patients do assert their opinion, it can result in conflict. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Some hospitalized patients are interested in discussing treatment. Improving hospital communication can foster patient autonomy.