Design of a Prostate Cancer Patient Navigation Intervention for a Veterans Affairs Hospital

Patient navigation programs have been launched nationwide in an attempt to reduce racial/ethnic and socio-demographic disparities in cancer care, but few have evaluated outcomes in the prostate cancer setting. The National Cancer Institute-funded Chicago Patient Navigation Research Program (C-PNRP) aims to implement and evaluate the efficacy of a patient navigation intervention for predominantly low-income minority patients with an abnormal prostate cancer screening test at a Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital in Chicago

Navigating Veterans with an Abnormal Prostate Cancer Screening Test: A Quasi-Experimental Study

Prostate cancer disproportionately affects low-income and minority men. This study evaluates the impact of a patient navigation intervention on timeliness of diagnostic resolution and treatment initiation among veterans with an abnormal prostate cancer screen.MethodsParticipants were enrolled between 2006 and 2010. The intervention involved a social worker and lay health worker navigation team that assisted patients in overcoming barriers to care. For navigated (n = 245) versus control (n = 245) participants, we evaluated rates of diagnostic resolution and treatment and adjusted for race, age, and Gleason score

Two Mechanistic Pathways for Thienopyridine-Associated Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura: A Report From the SERF-TTP Research Group and the RADAR Project

We sought to describe clinical and laboratory findings for a large cohort of patients with thienopyridine-associated thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP)

Establishing survivorship care planning in a comprehensive cancer center to meet clinic needs and accreditation standards

59 Background: Standard 3.3 of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) patient-centered care guidelines requires that accredited institutions deliver SCPs to all patients completing cancer treatment with curative intent (10% of eligible patients in 2015 and increasing incrementally to 100% in 2019). Implementation of SCP delivery has been challenging and limited to date. We describe our implementation process at the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center. Methods: We established a multidisciplinary working group that developed and administered a survey of providers’ attitudes towards SCPs and preferences for delivery, assessed clinical workflows, then developed and vetted customized SCP templates within the electronic health record (EHR) and two complimentary SCP delivery models. Results: Twelve providers completed the survey (6 physicians, 5 advanced practice providers [APPs], 1 nurse). 67% viewed SCPs as feasible within workflows, 75% felt designated survivorship clinicians were best equipped to deliver SCPs; All reported SCPs were beneficial to patients; and 92% felt SCPs were beneficial to inter-provider communication. Cited barriers were: time and staff required and non-optimal billing. To harmonize with existing workflows, we established two delivery models: (1) clinical groups with a low volume of survivors relative to available nursing staff complete and deliver SCPs themselves; (2) clinical groups with high volumes of survivors relative to available nursing staff refer patients to a centralized survivorship clinic where SCPs are delivered by designated survivorship APPs. All elements of the ASCO templates were incorporated into our EHR templates. We reduced free-text data entry by designing templates where 20% of the fields are auto-populated from existing EHR data and another 65% use drop-down menus. Mean completion time is 12 minutes (range 10-30 minutes; n= 30). Conclusions: CoC-accredited institutions across the nation are working to meet Standard 3.3. We present our experiences developing and implementing SCP delivery models, including lessons learned to inform models of survivorship care under development at other institutions

Survivorship care planning in a comprehensive cancer center using an implementation framework

Cancer survivorship care plans (SCPs) have been recommended to improve clinical care and patient outcomes. Research is needed to establish their efficacy and identify best practices. Starting in 2015, centers accredited by the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer must deliver SCPs to patients completing primary cancer treatment with curative intent. We describe how we established routine SCP delivery at the Robert H Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chicago, Illinois, using the Quality Implementation Framework. We evaluated local practices, gathered clinician and patient stakeholder input, developed customized SCP templates within the electronic health record (EHR), and implemented 2 complementary delivery models. Clinician interviews (n = 41) and survey responses (n = 12), along with input from patients (n = 68) and a patient advisory board (n = 15), indicated support for SCPs and survivorship services. To promote feasible implementation and leverage existing workflows, we harmonized 2 SCP delivery models: integrated care within clinics where patients received treatment, and referral to a centralized survivorship clinic. We are implementing SCP delivery with prominent disease sites and will extend services to survivors of other cancers in the future. We developed four electronic disease-specific SCP templates for breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers and a fifth, generic template that can be used for other malignancies. The templates reduced free-text clinician entry by auto-populating 20% of the fields from existing EHR data, and using drop-down menus for another 65%. Mean SCP completion time is 12 minutes (range, 10-15; n = 64). We designed our framework to facilitate ongoing evaluation of implementation and quality improvement. Funding/sponsorship Robert H Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, the Coleman Foundation, and the Lynn Sage Cancer Research Foundation

Older patients\u27 perceptions of medication importance and worth: an exploratory pilot study

BACKGROUND: Cost-related medication non-adherence may be influenced by patients\u27 perceived importance of their medications. OBJECTIVES: This exploratory pilot study addresses three related but distinct questions: Do patients perceive different levels of importance among their medications? What factors influence perceptions of medication importance? Is perceived importance associated with perceived worth of medications, and does expense impact on that association? METHODS: Study participants included individuals aged \u3eor=60 years who were taking three or more prescription drugs. Semi-structured, in-person interviews were conducted to measure how patients rated their medications in terms of importance, expense and worth. Factors that influenced medication importance were identified using qualitative analysis. Ordinal logistic regression analyses were employed to examine the association between perceived importance and perceived worth of medications, and the impact of expense on that association. RESULTS: For 143 prescription drugs reported by 20 participants, the weighted mean rating of medication importance was 8.2 (SD 1.04) on a scale from 0 (not important at all) to 10 (most important). Patients considered 38% of these medications to be expensive. The weighted mean rating of worth was 8.4 (SD 1.46) on a scale from 0 (not worth it at all) to 10 (most worth). Three major factors influenced medication importance: drug-related (characteristics, indications, effects and alternatives); patient-related (knowledge, attitudes and health); and external (the media, healthcare and family caregivers, and peers). Regression analyses showed an association between perceived importance and perceived worth for inexpensive medications (odds ratio [OR] 2.23; p = 0.002) and an even greater association between perceived importance and perceived worth for expensive medications (OR 4.29; p \u3c 0.001). DISCUSSION: This study provides preliminary evidence that elderly patients perceive different levels of importance for their medications based on factors beyond clinical efficacy. Their perception of importance influences how they perceive their medications\u27 worth, especially for medications of high costs. Understanding how patients perceive medication importance may help in the development of interventions to reduce cost-related non-adherence