Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Implementing and sustaining a breast cancer prospective surveillance rehabilitation program: an institutional perspective

  • Policy Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Cancer Survivorship Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The prospective surveillance model (PSM) is an evidence-based rehabilitation care delivery model that facilitates functional screening and intervention for individuals undergoing cancer treatment. While PSM is empirically validated and feasible in practice, implementation into cancer care delivery has languished. The purpose of this manuscript is to characterize the barriers and facilitators to implementing PSM in a breast cancer center and to share policy and process outcomes that have sustained the model in practice.

Methods

The PSM implementation was undertaken as a quality improvement initiative of our cancer center. We retrospectively assessed barriers to implementation and define those according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Implementation strategies are defined based on the Expert Recommendations for Implementation Change (ERIC) taxonomy. Breast center policy changes and stakeholder-reported process improvement outcomes at the clinic and system level are described.

Results

PSM implementation facilitation was driven primarily by adapting the model to align with the cancer center workflow, engaging interdisciplinary stakeholders as program champions, enhancing knowledge and awareness among cancer care providers, and changing infrastructure to support the model. System and clinic-level policy and process changes included the development of clinical pathways, EHR order sets and automated referrals, new staffing models, and adapted clinical workflows.

Conclusion

Our report provides insight on implementing the PSM at a single institution in a cancer care delivery setting. Successful implementation strategies addressed individual, clinic, and system-level barriers and facilitated process and policy changes that have enabled PSM sustainment. Improving integration of rehabilitation services into oncology care has significant implications for survivorship care by enhancing proactive management of functional morbidity.

Implications for Cancer Survivors

Improving integration of rehabilitation services into oncology care has significant implications for survivorship care by enhancing proactive management of functional morbidity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cheville AL, McLaughlin SA, Haddad TC, Lyons KD, Newman R, Ruddy KJ. Integrated rehabilitation for breast cancer survivors. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;98(2):154–64. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0000000000001017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Runowicz CD, Leach CR, Henry NL, et al. American Cancer Society/American Society of Clinical Oncology breast cancer survivorship care guideline. Cancer J Clin. 2016;66(1):43–73. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Springer BA, Levy E, McGarvey C, et al. Pre-operative assessment enables early diagnosis and recovery of shoulder function in patients with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;120(1):135–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-009-0710-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Stout Gergich NL, Pfalzer LA, McGarvey C, Springer B, Gerber LH, Soballe P. Preoperative assessment enables the early diagnosis and successful treatment of lymphedema. Cancer. 2008;112(12):2809–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23494.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Levy EW, Pfalzer LA, Danoff J, et al. Predictors of functional shoulder recovery at 1 and 12 months after breast cancer surgery. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;134(1):315–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-012-2061-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Santa Mina D, Brahmbhatt P, Lopez C, et al. The case for prehabilitation prior to breast cancer treatment. PM R. 2017;9(9S2):S305-R316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2017.08.402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lai L, Binkley J, Jones V, et al. Implementing the prospective surveillance model (PSM) of rehabilitation for breast cancer patients with 1-year postoperative follow-up, a prospective, observational study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(10):3379–84. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5315-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rafn BS, Hung S, Hoens AM, et al. Prospective surveillance and targeted physiotherapy for arm morbidity after breast cancer surgery: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2018;32(6):811–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215518757292.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Koelmeyer LA, Borotkanics RJ, Alcorso J, et al. Early surveillance is associated with less incidence and severity of breast cancer-related lymphedema compared with a traditional referral model of care. Cancer. 2019;125(6):854–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.31873.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Stout NL, Binkley JM, Schmitz KH, et al. A prospective surveillance model for rehabilitation for women with breast cancer. Cancer. 2012;118(8 Suppl):2191–200. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.27476.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Barnes CA, Stout NL, Varghese TK Jr, et al. Clinically integrated physical therapist practice in cancer care: a new comprehensive approach. Phys Ther. 2020;100(3):543–53. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzz169.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Stout NL, Brunelle C, Scheiman N, Thawer H. Surveillance protocols for survivors at risk for lymphedema. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 2021;13(1):19–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-020-00402-y.

  13. Yang EJ, Ahn S, Kim E-K, et al. Use of a prospective surveillance model to prevent breast cancer treatment-related lymphedema: a single-center experience. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;160(2):269–76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Leach HJ, Covington KR, Pergolotti M, et al. Translating research to practice using a team-based approach to cancer rehabilitation: a physical therapy and exercise-based cancer rehabilitation program reduces fatigue and improves aerobic capacity. Rehabil Oncol 2018;36(4):206–213.

  15. Alfano CM, Kent EE, Padgett LS, Grimes M, de Moor JS. Making cancer rehabilitation services work for cancer patients: recommendations for research and practice to improve employment outcomes. PM R. 2017;9(9S2):S398–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2017.06.019.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Brown CH, Curran G, Palinkas LA, et al. An overview of research and evaluation designs for dissemination and implementation. Annu Rev Public Health. 2017;38:1–22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Mitchell SA, Chambers DA. Leveraging implementation science to improve cancer care delivery and patient outcomes. J Oncol Pract. 2017;13(8):523.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Proctor EK, Powell BJ, McMillen JC. Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implement Sci. 2013;8:139. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-139.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Ahmed S. Integrating DMAIC approach of Lean Six Sigma and theory of constraints toward quality improvement in healthcare. Rev Environ Health. 2019;34(4):427–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Matthieu MM, et al. Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships among implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importance: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):109.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Swisher AK, Mia Erickson P, Cht A. Frequency and severity of self-reported upper extremity impairments, activity limitations, and participation restrictions following breast cancer treatment. Rehabil Oncol. 2010;28(1):3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hayes SC, Johansson K, Stout NL, et al. Upper-body morbidity after breast cancer: incidence and evidence for evaluation, prevention, and management within a prospective surveillance model of care. Cancer. 2012;118(8 Suppl):2237–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.27467.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Schmitz KH, Speck RM, Rye SA, DiSipio T, Hayes SC. Prevalence of breast cancer treatment sequelae over 6 years of follow-up: the Pulling Through Study. Cancer. 2012;118(8 Suppl):2217–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.27474.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Stout NL, Santa Mina D, Lyons KD, Robb K, Silver JK. A systematic review of rehabilitation and exercise recommendations in oncology guidelines. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(2):149–175. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21639.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer. Cancer program standards 2020: optimal resources for cancer care. 2020. Accessed May 1, 2022. https://www.facs.org/-/media/files/quality-programs/cancer/coc/optimal_resources_for_cancer_care_2020_standards.ashx.

  27. American College of Surgeons, National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers. Standards manual 2018. National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers. Accessed May 1, 2022. https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/cancer-programs/national-accreditation-program-for-breast-centers/standards-and-resources/.

  28. Alfano CM, Cheville AL, Mustian K. Developing high-quality cancer rehabilitation programs: a timely need. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2016;35:241–9. https://doi.org/10.1200/EDBK_156164.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Stout NL, Silver JK, Raj VS, et al. Toward a national initiative in cancer rehabilitation: recommendations from a subject matter expert group. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97(11):2006–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2016.05.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Long-term survivorship care after cancer treatment: Proceedings of a workshop. National Academies Press, 2018. Accessed May 2022. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/25043/long-term-survivorship-care-after-cancer-treatment-proceedings-of-a

  31. Schmitz KH, Stout NL, Andrews K, Binkley JM, Smith RA. Prospective evaluation of physical rehabilitation needs in breast cancer survivors: a call to action. Cancer. 2012;118(8 Suppl):2187–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.27471.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Neo J, Fettes L, Gao W, Higginson IJ, Maddocks M. Disability in activities of daily living among adults with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Treat Rev. 2017;61:94–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2017.10.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Cheville AL, Beck LA, Petersen TL, Marks RS, Gamble GL. The detection and treatment of cancer-related functional problems in an outpatient setting. Support Care Cancer. 2009;17(1):61–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-008-0461-x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Pergolotti M, Deal AM, Lavery J, Reeve BB, Muss HB. The prevalence of potentially modifiable functional deficits and the subsequent use of occupational and physical therapy by older adults with cancer. Journal of geriatric oncology. 2015;6(3):194–201.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. McNeely ML, Binkley JM, Pusic AL, Campbell KL, Gabram S, Soballe PW. A prospective model of care for breast cancer rehabilitation: postoperative and postreconstructive issues. Cancer. 2012;118(8 Suppl):2226–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.27468.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Greenlee H, DuPont-Reyes MJ, Balneaves LG, et al. Clinical practice guidelines on the evidence-based use of integrative therapies during and after breast cancer treatment. CA: Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(3):194–232. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21397.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Senkus E, Kyriakides S, Ohno S, et al. Primary breast cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(suppl 5):v8-30. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdv298.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Goetz MP, Gradishar WJ, Anderson BO, et al. Breast cancer, version 3.2018: featured updates to the NCCN guidelines. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2019;17(2):118–26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Stubblefield MD. Radiation fibrosis syndrome: neuromuscular and musculoskeletal complications in cancer survivors. PM R. 2011;3(11):1041–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2011.08.535.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Moullin JC, Dickson KS, Stadnick NA, Rabin B, Aarons GA. Systematic review of the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0842-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Shelton RC, Cooper BR, Stirman SW. The sustainability of evidence-based interventions and practices in public health and health care. Annu Rev Public Health. 2018;39(1):55–76. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-014731.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Baumann AA, Cabassa LJ, Stirman SW. Adaptation in dissemination and implementation science. Dissemination Implement Res Health: Translating Sci Pract. 2017;2:286–300.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Li S-A, Jeffs L, Barwick M, Stevens B. Organizational contextual features that influence the implementation of evidence-based practices across healthcare settings: a systematic integrative review. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):72. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0734-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Miech EJ, Rattray NA, Flanagan ME, Damschroder L, Schmid AA, Damush TM. Inside help: an integrative review of champions in healthcare-related implementation. SAGE Open Med. 2018;6:2050312118773261.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Bowen SJ, Graham ID. From knowledge translation to engaged scholarship: promoting research relevance and utilization. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94(1):S3–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Meyers DC, Durlak JA, Wandersman A. The quality implementation framework: a synthesis of critical steps in the implementation process. Am J Community Psychol. 2012;50(3):462–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Fernandez ME, Ten Hoor GA, Van Lieshout S, et al. Implementation mapping: using intervention mapping to develop implementation strategies. Front Public Health. 2019;7:158.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Nilsen P, Bernhardsson S. Context matters in implementation science: a scoping review of determinant frameworks that describe contextual determinants for implementation outcomes. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Hematology Oncology, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, WV, USA

    Nicole L. Stout

  2. Department of Health Policy, Management, and Leadership, West Virginia University School of Public Health, Morgantown, WV, USA

    Nicole L. Stout

  3. West Virginia University Cancer Institute, Morgantown, WV, USA

    Nicole L. Stout, Hannah Hazard Jenkins, Megan Burkart & Anne K. Swisher

  4. Division of Physical Therapy, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, WV, USA

    Ralph Utzman, Megan Burkart & Anne K. Swisher

  5. Department of Surgery, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, WV, USA

    Hannah Hazard Jenkins

Authors
  1. Nicole L. Stout
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ralph Utzman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hannah Hazard Jenkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Megan Burkart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anne K. Swisher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Concept and design: AS, NS, RU. Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: NS, RU, AS, MB, HHJ. Drafting of the manuscript: NS, AS, RU. Critical revision of the manuscript: NS, RU, AS, MB, HHJ. Statistical analysis: N/A. Obtained funding: N/A. Administrative, technical, or material support: NS, RU, AS, MB, HHJ. Supervision: N/A.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicole L. Stout.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

NS: consultant/speakers bureau: MedBridge Inc., Survivorship Solutions LLC. RU: none. HHJ: none. MB: none. AS: none.

Data availability

This narrative review did not collect a data set for this report.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stout, N.L., Utzman, R., Jenkins, H.H. et al. Implementing and sustaining a breast cancer prospective surveillance rehabilitation program: an institutional perspective. J Cancer Surviv 17, 509–517 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-022-01304-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-022-01304-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation