Survivorship Care Plan Implementation in US Cancer Programs: a National Survey of Cancer Care Providers
Survivorship care plans (SCPs)—documents intended to improve care for cancer survivors who have completed active treatment—are required, yet implementation is poor. We sought to understand SCP implementation in cancer programs in the USA with the objective of identifying opportunities for improvement. We recruited cancer care providers in the USA via several cancer care networks to participate in a survey regarding SCP implementation. We used descriptive statistics to analyze the data. Three hundred ninety-five providers from diverse cancer programs in 47 states and Washington, DC responded to the survey. The timing of SCP implementation varied across and within cancer programs, with approximately 40% of respondents reporting developing SCPs more than 3 months after primary treatment or adjuvant therapy completion. Nurse navigators were responsible for 48–58% of each stage of SCP implementation. Processes that could have been automated often occurred in-person or via phone and vice versa. Respondents reported spending more than 2 h per SCP to complete all stages of implementation, of which less than a third was reimbursed by third-party payers. We identified several opportunities for improving SCP implementation, including broadening the base of responsibility, optimizing modes of communication, decreasing the time required and increasing the funding available, and limiting variation in SCP implementation across and within cancer programs. Future work should assess the influence of approaches to SCP implementation on desired outcomes.
KeywordsSurvivorship care plans Implementation Cancer care delivery Quality improvement
The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), its Board of Governors, or Methodology Committee, or the official views of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences or the National Institutes of Health. We appreciate the input of the Survivorship Special Interest Group, George Washington Cancer Center’s PCORI-funded Generation and Translation of Evidence: An Oncology Community of Practice, a group created as a result of PCORI Contract 1426-GWU, as well as collaborating organizations who contributed to sample recruitment.
This project was an outgrowth of engagement activities supported by a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Eugene Washington PCORI Engagement Award (1426-GWU). This publication was supported by Award Number UL1TR001876 from the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Infrastructure that made this project possible was partially supported by Award Number UL1TR001876 from the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. SB also received funding from the National Institutes of Health through Grant KL2TR001109.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- 2.Hewitt M (2005) In: Greenfield S, Stovall E (eds) From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 9.Nicolaije KAH, Husson O, Ezendam NPM, Vos MC, Kruitwagen RFPM, Lybeert MLM, van de Poll-Franse LV (2012) Endometrial cancer survivors are unsatisfied with received information about diagnosis, treatment and follow-up: a study from the population-based PROFILES registry. Patient Educ Couns 88(3):427–435CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Institute of Medicine (2013) In: Levit, Laura A et al (eds) Delivering high-quality cancer care: charting a new course for a system in crisis. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 12.American College of Surgeons National Accreditation Program for Breast Cancers. Clarifications/changes to NAPBC standards. https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/napbc/standards/changes. Accessed 12 October 2017
- 13.National Cancer Survivorship Resource Center (2011) Systems policy and practice: clinical survivorship care. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society. https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/cancer-control/en/reports/systems-policy-and-practice-clinical-survivorship.pdf. Accessed 12 October 2017
- 14.McCabe MS, Bhatia S, Oeffinger KC, Reaman GH, Tyne C, Wollins DS, Hudson MM (2013) American Society of Clinical Oncology statement: achieving high-quality cancer survivorship care. J Clin Oncol 31(5):631–640 http://ascopubs.org/doi/full/10.1200/jco.2012.46.6854. Accessed 2 October 2017CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 15.Commission on Cancer, American Cancer Society (2012) Cancer program standards 2012: ensuring patient-centered care. American College of Surgeons, Atlanta https://www.facs.org/~/media/files/quality%20programs/cancer/coc/programstandards2012.ashx. Accessed 12 October 2017Google Scholar
- 21.Hershman DL, Greenlee H, Awad D, Greenlee H, Awad D, Kalinsky K, Maurer M, Kranwinkel G, Brafman L, Jayasena R, Tsai W-Y, Neugut AI, Crew KD (2013) Randomized controlled trial of a clinic-based survivorship intervention following adjuvant therapy in breast cancer survivors. Breast Cancer Res Treat 138:795–806CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Nicolaije, Kim AH, Nicole PM, Ezendam M, Vos C et al (2015) Impact of an automatically generated cancer survivorship care plan on patient-reported outcomes in routine clinical practice: longitudinal outcomes of a pragmatic cluster randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 33(31):3550–3559CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.de Rooij BH, Ezendam NPM, Nicolaije KAH, Caroline Vos M, Pijnenborg JMA, Boll D, Boss EA, Hermans RHM, Engelhart KCM, Haartsen JE, Pijlman BM, van Loon-Baelemans IEAM, Mertens HJMM, Nolting WE, van Beek JJ, Roukema JA, Kruitwagen RFPM, van de Poll-Franse LV (2017) Effects of survivorship care plans on patient reported outcomes in ovarian cancer during 2-year follow-up—the ROGY care trial. Gynecol Oncol 145(2):319–328CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 29.Forsythe LP, Parry C, Alfano CM et al (2013) Gaps in survivorship care plan delivery and potential benefits to survivorship care [abstract]. J Clin Oncol 31(suppl; abstr 9594)Google Scholar
- 32.Dillman DA (1978) Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 34.Jefford M, Lotfi-Jam K, Baravelli C, Grogan S, Rogers M, Krishnasamy M, Pezaro C, Milne D, Aranda S, King D, Shaw B, Schofield P (2011) Development and pilot testing of a nurse-led posttreatment support package for bowel cancer survivors. Cancer Nurs 34(3):E1–E10Google Scholar