The primary care provider (PCP)‐cancer specialist relationship: A systematic review and mixed‐methods meta‐synthesis

Although they are critical to models of coordinated care, the relationship and communication between primary care providers (PCPs) and cancer specialists throughout the cancer continuum are poorly understood. By using predefined search terms, the authors conducted a systematic review of the literature in 3 databases to examine the relationship and communication between PCPs and cancer specialists. Among 301 articles identified, 35 met all inclusion criteria and were reviewed in‐depth. Findings from qualitative, quantitative, and disaggregated mixed‐methods studies were integrated using meta‐synthesis. Six themes were identified and incorporated into a preliminary conceptual model of the PCP‐cancer specialist relationship: 1) poor and delayed communication between PCPs and cancer specialists, 2) cancer specialists’ endorsement of a specialist‐based model of care, 3) PCPs’ belief that they play an important role in the cancer continuum, 4) PCPs’ willingness to participate in the cancer continuum, 5) cancer specialists’ and PCPs’ uncertainty regarding the PCP’s oncology knowledge/experience, and 6) discrepancies between PCPs and cancer specialists regarding roles. These data indicate a pervasive need for improved communication, delineation, and coordination of responsibilities between PCPs and cancer specialists. Future interventions aimed at these deficiencies may improve patient and physician satisfaction and cancer care coordination. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:156–169. © 2016 American Cancer Society.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/136438/1/caac21385_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/136438/2/caac21385.pd

Culturally Competent Care for Sexual and Gender Minority Patients at National Cancer Institute-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers

Purpose: This study sought to identify the policies and guidelines regarding culturally competent care of sexual and gender minority (SGM) cancer patients and survivors at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers. Methods: This study used an in-depth interview qualitative approach. Semistructured interviews were conducted via telephone with representatives from 21 of the 45 NCI-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers in 2015. Verbatim transcripts were created from the audiotapes for content analysis. Results: Two main themes were identified as follows: (1) patient-focused experiences and support and (2) organization-focused development activities. Most of the cancer centers in this study had an advisory committee to assist with SGM policies and guidelines. Despite the existence of these committees, the majority of centers did not have explicit policies, guidelines, or routine practices addressing the following issues: the collection and integration of sexual orientation and gender identity information in the medical record, gender-neutral language on patient forms, patient educational materials with SGM-specific health concerns, SGM-specific support for cancer survivors, or required SGM-specific cultural competency trainings for medical and nonmedical staff. Conclusion: In general, the cancer centers in this study lacked institutional policies, guidelines, and practices focused on patient-centered cancer care for SGM populations. Coordinated efforts are needed to systemically improve patient-centered cancer care for these populations