Show simple item record

Patient perspectives on breast cancer treatment plan and summary documents in community oncology care

dc.contributor.authorBlinder, Victoria S.en_US
dc.contributor.authorNorris, Virginia W.en_US
dc.contributor.authorPeacock, Nancy W.en_US
dc.contributor.authorGriggs, Jennifer J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorHarrington, David P.en_US
dc.contributor.authorMoore, Anneen_US
dc.contributor.authorTheriault, Richard L.en_US
dc.contributor.authorPartridge, Ann H.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-01-03T19:45:05Z
dc.date.available2014-03-03T15:09:23Zen_US
dc.date.issued2013-01-01en_US
dc.identifier.citationBlinder, Victoria S.; Norris, Virginia W.; Peacock, Nancy W.; Griggs, Jennifer J.; Harrington, David P.; Moore, Anne; Theriault, Richard L.; Partridge, Ann H. (2013). "Patient perspectives on breast cancer treatment plan and summary documents in community oncology care ." Cancer 119(1): 164-172. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/95515>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0008-543Xen_US
dc.identifier.issn1097-0142en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/95515
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Although the routine use of treatment plans and summaries (TPSs) has been recommended to improve the quality of cancer care, limited data exist about their impact on quality, including patient satisfaction and coordination of care. METHODS: Patients received TPSs as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Registry (BCR) pilot program of 20 community oncology practices. Participants were surveyed 2 to 4 weeks after receiving a TPS to evaluate their perceptions of the document. Patients who were receiving chemotherapy received the TPS as separate plan and summary documents (at the start and the end of treatment) and could complete 2 surveys. Others received a single integrated TPS. Eligible survey participants had stage 0 through III breast cancer and were enrolled in the BCR. RESULTS: Of 292 consented patients, 174 (60%) completed at least 1 survey. Of 157 patients who recalled receiving a TPS, 148 (94%) believed that the documents improved patient‐physician communication, and 128 (82%) believed that they improved communication between physicians; 113 (72%) said the documents increased their peace of mind, whereas 2 (1%) had less peace of mind. Of 152 patients (97%) who still had their documents, 147 (97%) said they were useful, and 94 (62%) had given or planned to give the documents to another physician. All 63 patients who were surveyed after receiving a summary recommended that practices continue to provide TPSs to patients. CONCLUSIONS: Participants in this study expressed high satisfaction with TPSs. Additional research is needed to study the broad‐scale implementation of the BCR and to evaluate the impact of routine use of TPSs on the quality of care delivered. Cancer 2013. © 2012 American Cancer Society. Breast cancer survivors express high levels of satisfaction with the integration of treatment plan and summary documents into their clinical care. Participants recommended that practices continue to provide these documents to their patients.en_US
dc.publisherWiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Companyen_US
dc.subject.otherBreast Canceren_US
dc.subject.otherSurvivorshipen_US
dc.subject.otherSurvivorship Care Planen_US
dc.subject.otherTreatment Summaryen_US
dc.subject.otherTreatment Planen_US
dc.titlePatient perspectives on breast cancer treatment plan and summary documents in community oncology careen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPublic Healthen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelOncology and Hematologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, Memorial Sloan‐Kettering Cancer Center, 300 East 66th Street, 14th Floor, New York, NY, 10065en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan‐Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New Yorken_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherAmerican Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, Virginiaen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherTennessee Oncology, PLLC, Nashville, Tennesseeen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Biostatistics, Dana‐Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusettsen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New Yorken_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texasen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dana‐Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusettsen_US
dc.identifier.pmid23197335en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/95515/1/27856_ftp.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/cncr.27856en_US
dc.identifier.sourceCanceren_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMalin JL, Schneider EC, Epstein AM, Adams J, Emanuel EJ, Kahn KL. Results of the National Initiative for Cancer Care Quality: how can we improve the quality of cancer care in the United States? J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24: 626 ‐ 634.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePartridge A, Norris V, Blinder V, et al. Implementing a breast cancer registry and treatment plan/summary program in clinical practice: a pilot program. Cancer. 2012; 000: 000 ‐ 000.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAmerican Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO). ASCO Breast Cancer Treatment Plan and Summary Resources. Available at: http://www.asco.org/ASCOv2/Practice+%26+Guidelines/Quality+ Care/Quality+Measurement+%26+Improvement/Chemotherapy+ Treatment+Plan+and+Summary/Breast+Cancer+Treatment+Plan+ and+Summary+Resources?cpsextcurrchannel=1. Accessed March 26, 2012.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGrunfeld E, Julian JA, Pond GR, et al. Evaluating survivorship care plans: results of a randomized, clinical trial of patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29: 4755 ‐ 4762.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHewitt ME, Bamundo A, Day R, Harvey C. Perspectives on post‐treatment cancer care: qualitative research with survivors, nurses, and physicians. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25: 2270 ‐ 2273.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKantsiper M, McDonald EL, Geller G, Shockney L, Snyder C, Wolff AC. Transitioning to breast cancer survivorship: perspectives of patients, cancer specialists, and primary care providers. J Gen Intern Med. 2009; 24 ( suppl 2 ): S459 ‐ S466.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNissen MJ, Beran MS, Lee MW, Mehta SR, Pine DA, Swenson KK. Views of primary care providers on follow‐up care of cancer patients. Fam Med. 2007; 39: 477 ‐ 482.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceErikson C, Salsberg E, Forte G, Bruinooge S, Goldstein M. Future supply and demand for oncologists: challenges to assuring access to oncology services. J Oncol Pract. 2007; 3: 79 ‐ 86.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGanz PA. Quality of care and cancer survivorship: the challenge of implementing the Institute of Medicine recommendations. J Oncol Pract. 2009; 5: 101 ‐ 105.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNational Cancer Institute; Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. Fast Stats: An interactive tool for access to SEER cancer statistics. Bethesda, MD: Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute; 2012.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBober SL, Recklitis CJ, Campbell EG, et al. Caring for cancer survivors: a survey of primary care physicians. Cancer. 2009; 115 ( 18 suppl ): 4409 ‐ 4418.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHoffman B, Stovall E. Survivorship perspectives and advocacy. J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24: 5154 ‐ 5159.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFeuerstein M. The cancer survivorship care plan: health care in the context of cancer. J Oncol Pract. 2009; 5: 113 ‐ 115.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEarle CC. Failing to plan is planning to fail: improving the quality of care with survivorship care plans. J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24: 5112 ‐ 5116.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHewitt M, Greenfield S, Stovall E. From Cancer Patient to Cancer Survivor: Lost in Transition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2006.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGanz PA, Hahn EE. Implementing a survivorship care plan for patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26: 759 ‐ 767.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMarbach TJ, Griffie J. Patient preferences concerning treatment plans, survivorship care plans, education, and support services. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2011; 38: 335 ‐ 342.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMao JJ, Bowman MA, Stricker CT, et al. Delivery of survivorship care by primary care physicians: the perspective of breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27: 933 ‐ 938.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSmith SL, Singh‐Carlson S, Downie L, Payeur N, Wai ES. Survivors of breast cancer: patient perspectives on survivorship care planning. J Cancer Surviv. 2011; 5: 337 ‐ 344.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBurg MA, Lopez ED, Dailey A, Keller ME, Prendergast B. The potential of survivorship care plans in primary care follow‐up of minority breast cancer patients. J Gen Intern Med. 2009; 24 ( suppl 2 ): S467 ‐ S471.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMiller R. Implementing a survivorship care plan for patients with breast cancer. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2008; 12: 479 ‐ 487.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRoyak‐Schaler R, Passmore SR, Gadalla S, et al. Exploring patient‐physician communication in breast cancer care for African American women following primary treatment. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2008; 35: 836 ‐ 843.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSmith TJ, Snyder C. Is it time for (survivorship care) plan B? J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29: 4740 ‐ 4742.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWare JE Jr, Snyder MK, Wright WR, Davies AR. Defining and measuring patient satisfaction with medical care. Eval Program Plann. 1983; 6: 247 ‐ 263.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.