Jeffrey Sisler

Evaluating Survivorship Care Plans: Results of a Randomized, Clinical Trial of Patients With Breast Cancer

PURPOSE An Institute of Medicine report recommends that patients with cancer receive a survivorship care plan (SCP). The trial objective was to determine if an SCP for breast cancer survivors improves patient-reported outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS Women with early-stage breast cancer who completed primary treatment at least 3 months previously were eligible. Consenting patients were allocated within two strata: less than 24 months and ≥ 24 months since diagnosis. All patients were transferred to their own primary care physician (PCP) for follow-up. In addition to a discharge visit, the intervention group received an SCP, which was reviewed during a 30-minute educational session with a nurse, and their PCP received the SCP and guideline on follow-up. The primary outcome was cancer-related distress at 12 months, assessed by the Impact of Event Scale (IES). Secondary outcomes included quality of life, patient satisfaction, continuity/coordination of care, and health service measures. RESULTS Overall, 408 survivors were enrolled through nine tertiary cancer centers. There were no differences between groups on cancer-related distress or on any of the patient-reported secondary outcomes, and there were no differences when the two strata were analyzed separately. More patients in the intervention than control group correctly identify their PCP as primarily responsible for follow-up (98.7% v 89.1%; difference, 9.6%; 95% CI, 3.9 to 15.9; P = .005). CONCLUSION The results do not support the hypothesis that SCPs are beneficial for improving patient-reported outcomes. Transferring follow-up to PCPs is considered an important strategy to meet the demand for scarce oncology resources. SCPs were no better than a standard discharge visit with the oncologist to facilitate transfer.

Explaining variation in cancer survival between 11 jurisdictions in the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership: a primary care vignette survey

Objectives The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) is a collaboration between 6 countries and 12 jurisdictions with similar primary care-led health services. This study investigates primary care physician (PCP) behaviour and systems that may contribute to the timeliness of investigating for cancer and subsequently, international survival differences. Design A validated survey administered to PCPs via the internet set out in two parts: direct questions on primary care structure and practice relating to cancer diagnosis, and clinical vignettes, assessing management of scenarios relating to the diagnosis of lung, colorectal or ovarian cancer. Participants 2795 PCPs in 11 jurisdictions: New South Wales and Victoria (Australia), British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario (Canada), England, Northern Ireland, Wales (UK), Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Primary and secondary outcome measures Analysis compared the cumulative proportion of PCPs in each jurisdiction opting to investigate or refer at each phase for each vignette with 1-year survival, and conditional 5-year survival rates for the relevant cancer and jurisdiction. Logistic regression was used to explore whether PCP characteristics or system differences in each jurisdiction affected the readiness to investigate. Results 4 of 5 vignettes showed a statistically significant correlation (p<0.05 or better) between readiness to investigate or refer to secondary care at the first phase of each vignette and cancer survival rates for that jurisdiction. No consistent associations were found between readiness to investigate and selected PCP demographics, practice or health system variables. Conclusions We demonstrate a correlation between the readiness of PCPs to investigate symptoms indicative of cancer and cancer survival rates, one of the first possible explanations for the variation in cancer survival between ICBP countries. No specific health system features consistently explained these findings. Some jurisdictions may consider lowering thresholds for PCPs to investigate for cancer—either directly, or by specialist referral, to improve outcomes.

Development of a survey instrument to investigate the primary care factors related to differences in cancer diagnosis between international jurisdictions.

BackgroundSurvival rates following a diagnosis of cancer vary between countries. The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP), a collaboration between six countries with primary care led health services, was set up in 2009 to investigate the causes of these differences. Module 3 of this collaboration hypothesised that an association exists between the readiness of primary care physicians (PCP) to investigate for cancer – the ‘threshold’ risk level at which they investigate or refer to a specialist for consideration of possible cancer – and survival for that cancer (lung, colorectal and ovarian). We describe the development of an international survey instrument to test this hypothesis.MethodsThe work was led by an academic steering group in England. They agreed that an online survey was the most pragmatic way of identifying differences between the jurisdictions. Research questions were identified through clinical experience and expert knowledge of the relevant literature.A survey comprising a set of direct questions and five clinical scenarios was developed to investigate the hypothesis. The survey content was discussed and refined concurrently and repeatedly with international partners. The survey was validated using an iterative process in England. Following validation the survey was adapted to be relevant to the health systems operating in other jurisdictions and translated into Danish, Norwegian and Swedish, and into Canadian and Australian English.ResultsThis work has produced a survey with face, content and cross cultural validity that will be circulated in all six countries. It could also form a benchmark for similar surveys in countries with similar health care systems.ConclusionsThe vignettes could also be used as educational resources. This study is likely to impact on healthcare policy and practice in participating countries.

Concordance With ASCO Guidelines for Surveillance After Colorectal Cancer Treatment: A Population-Based Analysis

PURPOSE Intensive surveillance after curative treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) is associated with improved overall survival. This study examined concordance with the 2005 ASCO surveillance guidelines at the population level. METHODS A cohort of 250 patients diagnosed with stage II or III CRC in 2004 and alive 42 months after diagnosis was identified from health administrative data in Manitoba, Canada. Colonoscopy, liver imaging, and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing were assessed over 3 years. Guidelines were met if patients had at least one colonoscopy in 3 years and at least one liver imaging test and three CEA tests annually. Multivariate logistic regression assessed the effect of patient and physician characteristics and disease and treatment factors on guideline concordance. RESULTS Guidelines for colonoscopy, liver imaging, and CEA were met by 80.4%, 47.2%, and 22% of patients, respectively. Guideline concordance for colonoscopy was predicted by annual contact with a surgeon, higher income, and the diagnosis of colon (rather than rectal) cancer. Adherence was lower in those older than 70 years and with higher comorbidity. For liver imaging, significant predictors were annual contact with an oncologist, receipt of chemotherapy, and diagnosis of colon cancer. Concordance with CEA guidelines was higher with annual contact with an oncologist and high levels of family physician contact, and lower in urban residents, in those older than 70, and in those with stage II disease. CONCLUSION Completion of recommended liver imaging and CEA testing fall well below guidelines in Manitoba, whereas colonoscopy is better provided. Addressing this gap should improve outcomes for CRC survivors.

Fecal occult blood testing instructions and impact on patient adherence.

INTRODUCTION Although the physicians role with patients is crucial in encouraging FOBT screening, the nature and content of physician-patient discussions about FOBT screening is unclear. As part of a larger study, this paper reports on our analyses of physician beliefs about fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and strategies they employed to enhance patient adherence. The second aim of this paper is to report on the perceptions of individuals at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) in regard to their awareness of the FOBT and their responses to physician recommendations about FOBT screening. METHODS The larger study was conducted in urban and rural Manitoba, Canada between 2008 and 2010. We used a qualitative design and conducted semi-structured, audio-recorded interviews with 15 physicians and 27 individuals at average risk for CRC. We included data from 11 family members or friends on their perspectives of FOBT instructions as individuals who were also at average risk for CRC and had their own experiences with CRC screening recommendations. RESULTS Despite widespread knowledge of The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care CRC screening guidelines, physician attitudes, behaviors, and instructions were not uniform in promoting patient adherence to FOBT screening. Individuals at average-risk for CRC identified that FOBT instructions were confusing and burdensome, which in turn served as a barrier in their adherence to FOBT screening. CONCLUSIONS Variation in FOBT instruction counseling in relation to the recommended age of individuals at average risk for CRC, as well as adequate patient preparation affected patient adherence. We recommend uniform or standardized instructions and counseling by health care providers who administer the FOBT kit to patients to promote adherence to recommended CRC screening.

Bridging the gap: The design of a survivorship curriculum for interspecialty collaboration.

13 Background: Interspecialty learning between trainees from different postgraduate training programs is unusual in Canada. Primary care providers (PCPs) have an increasing role in the provision of survivorship care in collaboration with cancer specialists (ONC), but coordination of care is often lacking and avenues for joint learning and interaction among these physicians are limited during residency. We are piloting a learning suite (LS) for PCP and ONC trainees in MB, ON & BC as part of a pan-Canadian study on integration of care between primary and cancer specialty care. METHODS Using Kerns Six-Step Approach to Curriculum Design, a national team of experts conducted surveys and focus groups with postgraduate program directors, cancer survivors, and trainees. We set learning objectives as informed by the needs assessment and used constructive alignment to build the curriculum in a blended learning format: online, workshop and clinical. We are assessing inter-disciplinary learning outcomes comparing pre and post results on a modified Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (M-RIPLS) in three pilot sites in 2015 with about 40 family medicine and oncology trainees. RESULTS Learning materials have been developed for a mixed audience of trainees. The interactive, one hour online session addresses cancer epidemiology, the domains of survivorship care, and specific issues in follow-up care for three cancer types, as well as province-specific survivorship initiatives. This is followed by a two hour, case-based learning workshop that focuses on collaboration and shared care. A clinical experience in cancer follow-up clinics concludes the LS. In PCP training sites without a nearby cancer centre, trainees are able to review videos of actual transitional appointments and follow-up clinics and of the cancer centre/oncologist perspective on shared care. Pilots are ongoing in 2015 with national rollout in 2016. CONCLUSIONS We expect that learning together in residency will impact on attitudes towards interspecialty collaboration in the care of cancer survivors. This interspecialty, blended learning curriculum will enhance the place of survivorship training in the postgraduate education of Canadian physicians.

Predictors of patient reluctance to wake early in the morning for bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a precolonoscopy survey in city-wide practice

Introduction  Many endoscopists do not use split-dose bowel preparation (SDBP) for morning colonoscopies. Despite SDBP being recommended practice, they believe patients will not agree to take early morning bowel preparation (BP). We assessed patients’ opinions about waking early for BP. Methods  A self-administered survey was distributed between 08/2015 and 06/2016 to patients in Winnipeg, Canada when they attended an outpatient colonoscopy. Logistic regression was performed to determine predictors of reluctance to use early morning BP. Results  Of the 1336 respondents (52 % female, median age 57 years), 33 % had used SDBP for their current colonoscopy. Of the 1336, 49 % were willing, 24 % neutral, and 27 % reluctant to do early morning BP. Predictors of reluctant versus willing were number of prior colonoscopies (OR 1.20; 95 %CI: 1.07 – 1.35), female gender (OR 1.65; 95 %CI: 1.19 – 2.29), unclear BP information (OR 1.86; 95 %CI: 1.21 – 2.85), high BP anxiety (OR 2.02; 95 %CI: 1.35 – 3.02), purpose of current colonoscopy being bowel symptoms (OR 1.40; 95 %CI: 1.00 – 1.97), use of 4 L of polyethylene glycol laxative (OR 1.45; 95 %CI: 1.02 – 2.06), not having SDBP (OR 1.96; 95 %CI: 1.31 – 2.93), and not having finished the laxative for the current colonoscopy (OR 1.66; 95 %CI: 1.01 – 2.73). Most of the same predictors were identified when reluctance was compared to willing or neutral, and in ordinal logistic regression. Conclusions  Almost three-quarters of patients do not express reluctance to get up early for BP. Among those who are reluctant, improving BP information, allaying BP-related anxiety, and use of low volume BP may increase acceptance of SDBP.

Peer-assisted debriefing of multisource feedback: an exploratory qualitative study

BackgroundThe Manitoba Physician Achievement Review (MPAR) is a 360-degree feedback assessment that physicians undergo every 7 years to retain licensure. Deliberate reflection on feedback has been demonstrated to encourage practice change. The MPAR Reflection Exercise (RE), a peer-assisted debriefing tool, was developed whereby the physician selects a peer with whom to review and reflect on feedback, committing to change. This qualitative study explores how physicians who had undergone the MPAR used the RE, what areas of change are identified and committed to, and what they perceived as the role of reflection in the MPAR process.MethodsThe MPAR RE was piloted out to a cohort of MPAR-reviewed physicians. Thematic analysis was conducted on completed exercises (n = 61). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with individuals (n = 6) who completed the MPAR RE until saturation was reached.ResultsPhysicians reviewed feedback with a range of peers, including colleagues, staff, and spouses. Many physicians were surprised by feedback, both positive and negative, but interviewees found the RE useful in processing feedback. Areas where physicians committed to change were diverse, covering all CanMEDS roles. Most physicians identified themselves as being successful in implementing change, though time, habit, and structures were cited as barriers.ConclusionsPeer-assisted debriefing can assist reflection of multisource feedback. It is easy to implement, is not resource-intensive, and feedback implies that it is effective at promoting change. Participants, with the aid of peers, identified areas for change, developed approaches for change, and largely thought themselves successful at implementing changes. Areas of change included all seven CanMEDS roles.

Moving forward after cancer: Implementation of transition appointments and follow-up care plans in Manitoba.

50 Background: Patient experience and local and international clinical research have focused attention on transitions in cancer care from treatment to follow-up. Deficiencies in the quality of survivorship care, including necessary testing, have been demonstrated. The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer has funded projects designed to enhance the implementation of survivorship care plans (SCPs) and to improve cancer system-primary care coordination. CancerCare Manitoba, a provincial agency, is a leader in this work. METHODS The Moving Forward After Cancer initiative combines the generation of standardized written SCPs from the EMR with enhanced patient assessment at the end of curative systemic / radiation therapy. A transition appointment (TA) is provided by the patients usual oncology providers and includes screening for distress, appropriate referrals, and provision of a personalized treatment summary and SCP to the patient, with copies to the primary care physician and surgeon. The TA often marks the transfer of medical responsibility to the primary care provider (PCP). RESULTS Transition appointments have been implemented for colorectal (2012), breast (2014), and lymphoma and gynecologic cancer patients (2015). A total of 364 TAs were done in Manitoba in 2014, of which 140 were with colorectal (stage II and III) and 224 with breast (stage I - III) patients, about 59% and 35% respectively of eligible patients. This is an increase of 385% from the 75 TAs done in 2013. Other patient outcomes being collected include perceptions of continuity of care, confidence in survivorship information, evaluation of the care plan documents and also PCP and oncology team perceptions. In order to support practice change, a workflow solution led by a designated team that is adaptable by all sites across the province has been developed. CONCLUSIONS The provision of TAs and SCPs is being well adopted in Manitoba. We expect that this intervention willimprove the experience of both patients and health care providers and the quality of care at the time of transition to survivorship. Implementation is underway with other disease site groups with the goal of all patients receiving a TA as they transition into survivorship.

Integrating primary care and cancer care in survivorship: A collaborative approach.

103 Background: Primary care providers (PCPs) have an important role in the provision of survivorship care. While there is evidence to support the feasibility and safety of PCP-led survivorship care, there are gaps in knowledge about how to best integrate providers to support transitions, enhance quality of care, increase system efficiencies, and improve patient and provider satisfaction. METHODS A pan-Canadian study comprised of three projects has been initiated to address three key aspects of care integration, based on a previously described system performance framework. Functional integration will be studied through the evaluation of electronic survivorship care plans using a prospective cohort of breast and colorectal cancer patients with pre and post measures of knowledge, care coordination, and satisfaction. Vertical integration will be evaluated through a series of descriptive case studies to document structures and processes that are currently in place to support PCP re-referral to regional cancer centres. Clinical integration will be studied through the development and evaluation of an interspecialty survivorship training curriculum for oncology and family medicine trainees. RESULTS Functional integration: Development of an electronic platform for care plan outputs is complete. Two sites in Ontario (ON) and one in British Columbia (BC) have been selected to study the impact on 200 patients and their providers. Vertical integration: Using a study-specific interview guide, 48 semi-structured key informant interviews have been successfully conducted in ON; 15 interviews are planned for Manitoba (MB) and 15 for BC. Clinical Integration: a National Advisory Committee was established and needs assessments were performed with postgraduate program directors, cancer survivors, and trainees using online surveys and focus groups. A blended learning curriculum is being piloted in MB, ON, and BC in 2015. CONCLUSIONS Integrating primary care and cancer care in survivorship requires a collaborative approach that begins in residency, supports PCPs with clear mechanisms for re-entry, and optimizes communication. This study will inform approaches to enhancing provider integration and survivorship care.