A mixed-methods analysis of the capacity of the Patient-Centered Medical Home to implement care coordination services for cancer survivors.

There are currently 15.5 million cancer survivors in USA who are increasingly relying on primary care providers for their care. Patient-Centered Medical Homes (PCMHs) have the potential to meet the unique needs of cancer survivors; but, few studies have examined PCMH attributes as potential resources for delivering survivorship care. This study assesses the current care coordination infrastructure in advanced PCMHs, known to be innovative, and explores their capacity to provide cancer survivorship care. We conducted comparative case studies of a purposive sample (n = 9) of PCMHs to examine current care coordination infrastructure and capacity through a mixed- methods analysis. Data included qualitative interviews, quantitative surveys, and fieldnotes collected during 10- to 12-day onsite observations at each practice. Case studies included practices in five states with diverse business models and settings. Eight of the nine practices had National Committee for Quality Assurance Level 3 PCMH recognition. No practices had implemented a systematic approach to cancer survivorship care. We found all practices had a range of electronic population health management tools, care coordinator roles in place for chronic conditions, and strategies or protocols for tracking and managing complex disease groups. We identified potential capacity, as well as barriers, to provide cancer survivorship care using existing care coordination infrastructure developed for other chronic conditions. This existing infrastructure suggests the potential to translate care coordination elements within primary care settings to accelerate the implementation of systematic survivorship care

Understanding primary care-oncology relationships within a changing healthcare environment.

BACKGROUND: Management of care transitions from primary care into and out of oncology is critical for optimal care of cancer patients and cancer survivors. There is limited understanding of existing primary care-oncology relationships within the context of the changing health care environment. METHODS: Through a comparative case study of 14 innovative primary care practices throughout the United States (U.S.), we examined relationships between primary care and oncology settings to identify attributes contributing to strengthened relationships in diverse settings. Field researchers observed practices for 10-12 days, recording fieldnotes and conducting interviews. We created a reduced dataset of all text related to primary care-oncology relationships, and collaboratively identified patterns to characterize these relationships through an inductive immersion/crystallization analysis process. RESULTS: Nine of the 14 practices discussed having either formal or informal primary care-oncology relationships. Nearly all formal primary care-oncology relationships were embedded within healthcare systems. The majority of private, independent practices had more informal relationships between individual primary care physicians and specific oncologists. Practices with formal relationships noted health system infrastructure that facilitates transfer of patient information and timely referrals. Practices with informal relationships described shared commitment, trust, and rapport with specific oncologists. Regardless of relationship type, challenges reported by primary care settings included lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities during cancer treatment and beyond. CONCLUSIONS: With the rapid transformation of U.S. healthcare towards system ownership of primary care practices, efforts are needed to integrate strengths of informal primary care-oncology relationships in addition to formal system driven relationships

Cancer Survivorship Care in Advanced Primary Care Practices A Qualitative Study of Challenges and Opportunities

Importance Despite a decade of effort by national stakeholders to bring cancer survivorship to the forefront of primary care, there is little evidence to suggest that primary care has begun to integrate comprehensive services to manage the care of long-term cancer survivors. Objective To explain why primary care has not begun to integrate comprehensive cancer survivorship services. Design, Setting, and Participants Comparative case study of 12 advanced primary care practices in the United States recruited from March 2015 to February 2017. Practices were selected from a national registry of 151 workforce innovators compiled for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Practices were recruited to include diversity in policy context and organizational structure. Researchers conducted 10 to 12 days of ethnographic data collection in each practice, including interviews with practice personnel and patient pathways with cancer survivors. Fieldnotes, transcripts, and practice documents were analyzed within and across cases to identify salient themes. Main Outcomes and Measures Description of cancer survivorship care delivery in advanced patient-centered medical homes, including identification of barriers and promotional factors related to that care. Results The 12 practices came from multiple states and policy contexts and had a mix of clinicians trained in family or internal medicine. All but 3 were recognized as National Committee on Quality Assurance level 3 patient-centered medical homes. None of the practices provided any type of comprehensive cancer survivorship services. Three interdependent explanatory factors emerged: the absence of a recognized, distinct clinical category of survivorship in primary care; a lack of actionable information to treat this patient population; and current information systems unable to support survivorship care. Conclusions and Relevance To increase the potential for primary care transformation efforts to integrate survivorship services into routine care, survivorship must become a recognized clinical category with actionable care plans supported by a functional information system infrastructure