Simplifying Survivorship Care Planning: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing 3 Care Plan Delivery Approaches.

BACKGROUND: Survivorship care plans seek to improve the transition to survivorship, but the required resources present implementation barriers. This randomized controlled trial aimed to identify the simplest, most effective approach for survivorship care planning. METHODS: Stage 1-3 breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer patients aged 21 years or older completing treatment were recruited from an urban-academic and rural-community cancer center. Participants were randomly assigned, stratified by recruitment site and cancer type 1:1:1 to a mailed plan, plan delivered during a 1-time transition visit, or plan delivered during a transition visit plus 6-month follow-up visit. Health service use data were collected from participants and medical records for 18 months. The primary outcome, receipt of all plan-recommended care, was compared across intervention arms using logistic regression adjusting for cancer type and recruitment site, with P less than .05 considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Of 378 participants randomly assigned, 159 (42.1%) were breast, 142 (37.6%) prostate, and 77 (20.4%) colorectal cancer survivors; 207 (54.8%) from the academic site and 171 (45.2%) from the community site; 316 were analyzable for the primary outcome. There was no difference across arms in the proportion of participants receiving all plan-recommended care: 45.2% mail, 50.5% 1-visit, 42.7% 2-visit (2-sided P = .60). Adherence by cancer type for mail, 1-visit, and 2-visit, respectively, was 52.2%, 53.3%, and 40.0% for breast cancer; 48.6%, 64.1%, and 57.1% for prostate cancer; and 23.8%, 19.0%, and 26.1% for colorectal cancer. There were no statistically significant interactions by recruitment site or cancer type. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not find differences in receipt of recommended follow-up care by plan delivery approach. Feasibility and other factors may determine the best approach for survivorship care planning.

Implementing survivorship care planning in two contrasting health systems: lessons learned from a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Survivorship care plans (SCPs) are recommended to promote appropriate follow-up care, but implementation has been limited. We conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing three SCP delivery models in two health systems. We utilize mixed methods to compare the feasibility and participants' perceived value of the three models. METHODS: Patients completing treatment for stage I-III breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer from one urban-academic and one rural community cancer center were randomized to (1) mailed SCP, (2) SCP delivered during an in-person survivorship visit, or (3) SCP delivered during an in-person survivorship visit plus 6-month follow-up. Clinics had flexibility in intervention implementation. Quantitative data summarize intervention fidelity and protocol deviations. Qualitative interview data provide patients' perspectives on feasibility and intervention value. RESULTS: Of 475 eligible participants approached, 378 (79%) were randomized. Of 345 SCPs delivered, 265 (76.8%) were by protocol. Protocol deviations were more common at the urban-academic center. In post-study qualitative interviews, participants recalled little about the SCP document or visit(s). SCPs were valued for information and care coordination, although their static nature was limiting, and sometimes SCP information differed from that provided elsewhere. Visits were opportunities for care and reassurance, but time and distance to the clinic were barriers. CONCLUSIONS: SCP provision was challenging. Patients were interested in SCP, but not necessarily additional survivorship visits, particularly at the urban-academic hospital. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: These findings suggest that patients value careful consideration of health care needs during the transition out of treatment; SCP documents are one element of this. For many patients, models without additional visits and dynamic SCPs may be preferred.

Early Predictors of Near-Shore Spinal Injuries Among Emergency Department Patients.

BACKGROUND: Spinal injuries (SIs) can pose a significant burden to patients and family; delayed surgical intervention, associated with interhospital transfer, results in worse outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify early patient-centered factors associated with risk for near-shore SIs to assist clinicians with expeditious medical decision-making. METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective study of all adults transported from Ocean City, Maryland to two emergency departments (EDs) and one regional trauma center for evaluation of suspected SIs from 2006 to 2017. Outcomes were any SI and any spinal cord injury (SCI). Multivariable logistic regression was performed for association of environmental and clinical factors with outcomes. RESULTS: We analyzed 278 records, 102 patients (37%) were diagnosed with any SI and 41 (15%) were diagnosed with SCIs. Compared with patients without SI, patients with SI were more likely to be older (48 vs. 39 years), male (90% vs. 70%), with pre-existing spinal condition (62% vs. 33%), and injury caused by diving (11% vs. 2%). Multivariable logistic regression showed age (odd ratio [OR] 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.11), diving (OR 3.5; 95% CI 3-100+), and wave height (OR 4.5; 95% CI 1.35-15.2) were associated with any SI, and a chief complaint of extremity numbness or tingling (OR 5.73; 95% CI 1.2-27.9) was associated with SCI. CONCLUSIONS: We identified older age, diving, and higher wave height as risk factors for any SI and symptoms of numbness and tingling were associated with SCIs. Clinicians should consider expediting these patients' transfers to a trauma center with neurosurgical capability.

End-of-life care at a community cancer center.

PURPOSE: The evidence-based use of resources for cancer care at end of life (EOL) has the potential to relieve suffering, reduce health care costs, and extend life. Internal benchmarks need to be established within communities to achieve these goals. The purpose for this study was to evaluate data within our community to determine our EOL cancer practices. METHODS: A random sample of 390 patients was obtained from the 942 cancer deaths in Wicomico County, Maryland, for calendar years 2004 to 2008. General demographic, clinical event, and survival data were obtained from that sample using cancer registry and hospice databases as well as manual medical record reviews. In addition, the intensity of EOL cancer care was assessed using previously proposed indicator benchmarks. The significance of potential relationships between variables was explored using χ(2) analyses. RESULTS: Mean age at death was 70 years; 52% of patients were male; 34% died as a result of lung cancer. Median survival from diagnosis to death was 8.4 months with hospice admission and 5.8 months without hospice (P = .11). Four of eight intensity-of-care indicators (ie, intensive care unit [ICU] admission within last month of life, > one hospitalization within last month of life, hospital death, and hospice referral < 3 days before death) all significantly exceeded the referenced benchmarks. Hospice versus nonhospice admissions were associated (P < .001) with ICU admissions (2% v 13%) and hospital deaths (2% v 54%). CONCLUSION: These data suggest opportunities to improve community cancer center EOL care.