Optimizing cancer survivorship in primary care: patient experiences from the Johns Hopkins Primary Care for Cancer Survivors clinic.

PURPOSE: The optimal delivery of survivorship care, particularly within primary care, remains poorly understood. We established the Johns Hopkins Primary Care for Cancer Survivors (PCCS) clinic in 2015 to address care challenges unique to cancer survivors. To better understand the care from the PCCS clinic, we interviewed patients about their perception of care delivery, survivorship care, and care coordination. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with adult survivors of any cancer type seen in the PCCS clinic. A priori and in vivo coding of verbatim transcripts was part of the thematic analysis. RESULTS: Seventeen cancer survivors were interviewed (ages 37-78). Themes that emerged were (1) optimal care and (2) the PCCS experience. Subthemes respectively included the ideal role of the primary care provider (1), telehealth/COVID-19 challenges and opportunities (1), patient-derived value from the PCCS clinic (2), and improving the PCCS model (2). Overall, PCCS patients expected and experienced high-quality, comprehensive primary care by providers with cancer survivorship expertise. Patients reported telehealth benefits and challenges for survivorship care during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: PCCS patients perceived receiving high-quality primary care and valued being seen in a primary care-based survivorship clinic. The PCCS clinic can serve as a model of primary care-based cancer survivorship. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Ideal primary care provider roles and care coordination are important factors for high-quality survivorship care and can be provided by a specialized cancer survivorship clinic in primary care.

Disparities in Breast Cancer.

In the western world, breast cancer is the most common lethal cancer in women and the second leading cause of cancer death behind lung cancer. When assessing registry data, incidence and mortalty vary significantly by race or ethnicity and by socioeconomic status. There are a number of established risk factors, that effect risk of not just risk of breast cancer overall but the risk of certain molecular subtypes of breast cancer. Other factors in the disparity in outcomes include certain populations experiencing lower quality of care; prevention, screening, diagnosis and treatment.

An absence of equipoise: Examining surgeons' decision talk during encounters with women considering breast cancer surgery.

Shared decision-making is recommended for decisions with multiple reasonable options, yet clinicians often subtly or explicitly guide choices. Using purposive sampling, we performed a secondary analysis of 142 audio-recorded encounters between 13 surgeons and women eligible for breast-conserving surgery with radiation or mastectomy. We trained 9 surgeons in shared decision-making and provided them one of two conversation aids; 4 surgeons practiced as usual. Based on a published taxonomy of treatment recommendations (pronouncements, suggestions, proposals, offers, assertions), we examined how surgeons framed choices with patients. Many surgeons made assertions providing information and advice (usual care 71% vs. intervention 66%; p = 0.54). Some made strong pronouncements (usual care 51% vs. intervention 36%; p = .09). Few made proposals and offers, leaving the door open for deliberation (proposals usual care 21% vs. intervention 26%; p = 0.51; offers usual care 40% vs. intervention 40%; p = 0.98). Surgeons were significantly more likely to describe options as comparable when using a conversation aid, mentioning this in all intervention group encounters (usual care 64% vs. intervention 100%; p<0.001). Conversation aids can facilitate offers of comparable options, but other conversational actions can inhibit aspects of shared decision-making.

A qualitative study examining pediatric clinicians' perceptions of delayed vaccine schedules.

OBJECTIVE: To explore pediatric clinicians' attitudes, beliefs, and perceived social norms about the impact of delayed vaccine schedules on the clinical management of their patients. METHODS: We conducted 30 semi-structured qualitative interviews with academic (Infectious Diseases, Emergency Medicine) and community pediatric clinicians (General Pediatrics) to explore clinicians' perspectives on how delayed schedules influence their clinical management of patients. The interview guide was based on the Theory of Planned Behavior. We analyzed interview transcripts using both an inductive and deductive thematic approach. RESULTS: The pediatric clinicians in our study overwhelmingly supported the recommended schedule, sought guidance on approaches to navigating conversations with vaccine hesitant families, and desired more evidence to effectively promote on-time vaccination. Clinicians described how delayed schedules have consequences for sick children (e.g., increased antibiotics, laboratory tests, emergency department visits) and healthy children (e.g., increased vaccine visits, out-of-pocket costs, fears among children receiving frequent shots). Clinicians stated that delayed schedules also negatively impact pediatric practices (e.g., increased time counseling patients, staff burden, clogged clinic space, unpredictable vaccine utilization, costs). CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric clinicians perceive that delayed vaccine schedules negatively affect patients, pediatric practices, the healthcare system, and society. Future research should quantify the consequences of delayed schedules and identify strategies that promote vaccine adherence. Results from future studies can better support clinician-parent conversations about vaccine hesitancy, guide decision-makers about practice-level approaches to vaccine schedules, and advise payors and policymakers regarding vaccine-related policies.

Importance of Shared Decision-Making for Vulnerable Populations: Examples from Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction.

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a process through which patients and providers collaborate to select a treatment option that aligns with patients' preferences and clinical context. SDM can improve patients' decision quality and satisfaction. However, vulnerable populations face barriers to participation in SDM, which exacerbates disparities in decision quality. This perspective article discusses SDM with vulnerable patients, using examples from patients who made decisions about postmastectomy breast reconstruction. We offer several strategies for clinical practice, medical education, and research to ensure that movements to engage patients in SDM do not exclude already marginalized groups.

Stakeholders' Perspectives on Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: Recognizing Ways to Improve Shared Decision Making.

BACKGROUND: Postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) is an elective, preference-sensitive decision made during a stressful, time-pressured period after a cancer diagnosis. Shared decision making (SDM) can improve decision quality about preference-sensitive choices. Stakeholders' perspectives on ways to support PMBR decision-making were explored. METHODS: Forty semi-structured interviews with stakeholders (20 postmastectomy patients, 10 PMBR surgeons, 10 PMBR nurses) were conducted. Clinicians were recruited from diverse practices across the United States. Patients were recruited using purposive sampling with varying PMBR experiences, including no reconstruction. The interview guide was based on an implementation research framework. Themes were identified using grounded theory approach, based on frequency and emotive force conveyed. RESULTS: Engagement in SDM was variable. Some patients wanted more information about PMBR from clinicians, particularly about risks. Some clinicians acknowledged highlighting benefits and downplaying risks. Many patients felt pressured to make a choice by their clinicians. Clinicians who successfully engaged patients through decisions often used outside resources to supplement conversations. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-clinician trust was critical to high-quality decisions, and many patients expressed decision regret when they were not engaged in PMBR discussions. Patients often perceived a race- or age-related bias in clinician information sharing. Interventions to support SDM may enhance decision quality and reduce decision regret about PMBR, ultimately improving patient-centered care for women with breast cancer.