OVARIAN CANCER and US: cancer care

Blog Archives: Nov 2004 - present

#ovariancancers



Special items: Ovarian Cancer and Us blog best viewed in Firefox

Search This Blog

Showing posts with label cancer care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cancer care. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

press release: Problems in cancer care are not uncommon



 Blogger's Opinion: although this article focuses on breast cancer, there is of course a common theme, attention is deserved for those with less common/rare cancers as the dichotomies in care (access, research, outcomes.....) should be obvious

                        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Problems in cancer care are not uncommon

Public release date: 17-Apr-2012

Difficulties occur more often in communication than in medical care

Cancer care is increasingly complex, and as many as one in five cancer patients may experience "breakdowns" in their care, according to a new study in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Such breakdowns include communication problems between patients and their care providers, as well as more traditional medical errors; both types of problems can create significant harms. In the study, communication problems outnumbered problems with medical care.

Kathleen Mazor, EdD, Assistant Director of the Meyers Primary Care Institute, in Worcester, MA, led the study, with researchers from the University of Washington, Group Health, and Kaiser Permanente. Their study was a project of the Cancer Research Network's Cancer Communication Research Center. They found that problematic events led to varied consequences, such as additional medical care, delayed recovery, emotional distress, and persistent damage to the relationship between patients and their doctors.

"For me, the take-home message is it's critical for us to listen to patients as we try to improve care," Dr. Mazor said. "The patients we spoke with were generous, articulate, and thoughtful in recounting their experiences, and were glad to share their stories because they wanted to make a difference. We also heard a lot of stories about physicians, nurses, and others who really helped make things better—in the aftermath of a problem or even in the absence of a problem."

Examining actions patients took following a breakdown, the research team found that only 13 percent formally reported the problem, choosing instead to focus on their health and their future. Nearly all patients indicated that the problem spurred them to take positive steps in their health care behaviors, such as asking more questions or researching symptoms and treatments. However, 10 percent of patients reported they became more hesitant to seek care

The study used telephone interviews rather than medical-chart documentation to understand how patients perceived their care experiences.

"It's vital that we hear directly from the patients," noted study co-author Sarah M. Greene, MPH. "The communication problems probably wouldn't have appeared in their medical record. But to the patient, they are as significant as a clinical adverse event, like a wrong dose of chemotherapy." Ms. Greene is a research associate at Group Health Research Institute in Seattle.

Both patients and clinicians need new ways to provide negative and positive feedback about cancer care, according to the authors, and these systems should include some patient and clinician education. Additionally, the study team noted that patients' perceptions of problems may differ from clinicians' perspectives, so educating clinicians is equally critical. The health systems in this study are currently exploring strategies to encourage both patients and clinicians to openly communicate about their care experiences and expectations.

This study "reminds us that substantial work is needed to optimize breast cancer care and, most importantly, communication," Jeffrey Peppercorn, MD, MPH, of Duke University Medical Center, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
###
The National Cancer Institute funded the study.
Dr. Mazor's and Ms. Greene's co-authors were Douglas Roblin, PhD, and Josephine Calvi, MPH, of Kaiser Permanente Georgia, in Atlanta; Kathryn Horner, MPH, of Group Health Research Institute; Celeste Lemay, RN, and Cassandra Firneno, BS, of Meyers Primary Care Institute, in Worcester, Massachusetts; and Thomas H. Gallagher, MD, an affiliate investigator at Group Health Research Institute who is based at the University of Washington School of Medicine's Department of Medicine.

Journal of Clinical Oncology The Journal of Clinical Oncology serves its readers as the single most credible, authoritative resource for disseminating significant clinical oncology research. In print and in electronic format, JCO strives to publish the highest quality articles dedicated to clinical research. Original Reports remain the focus of JCO, but this scientific communication is enhanced by appropriately selected Editorials, Commentaries, Reviews, and other work that relate to the care of patients with cancer. For more information, see http://jco.ascopubs.org/
 
HMO Research Network The HMO Research Network is a consortium of 19 health care delivery organizations with both defined patient populations and formal, recognized research capabilities. The Network's vision is to be the research partner of choice for those seeking to shape health and health care delivery. For more information, see http://www.hmoresearchnetwork.org
 
Meyers Primary Care Institute The Meyers Primary Care Institute was established in 1996 as a joint venture of Fallon Clinic (now Reliant Medical Group), Fallon Community Health Plan, and the University of Massachusetts Medical School. The Institute's mission is to promote primary care practice through innovative research and educational initiatives. For more information, see http://www.umassmed.edu/meyers/index.aspx
Kaiser Permanente Georgia's Center for Health Research Kaiser Permanente Georgia's Center for Health Research conducts professionally independent, public domain research and disseminates its findings in the scholarly literature and scientific community. For more information, see http://www.kpchr.org/research/public/default.aspx
 
Group Health Research Institute Group Health Research Institute is the research arm of Seattle-based Group Health Cooperative, a consumer-governed, nonprofit health care system. Founded in 1947, Group Health Cooperative coordinates health care and coverage. Group Health Research Institute changed its name from Group Health Center for Health Studies in 2009. Since 1983, the Institute has conducted nonproprietary public-interest research on preventing, diagnosing, and treating major health problems. Government and private research grants provide its main funding. For more information, see http://www.grouphealthresearch.org
 
UW Medicine The UW Medicine health system includes Harborview Medical Center, Northwest Hospital & Medical Center, Valley Medical Center, UW Medical Center, UW Neighborhood Clinics, UW Physicians, UW School of Medicine, and Airlift Northwest. UW Medicine also shares in the ownership and governance of Children's University Medical Group and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, a partnership among UW Medicine, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and Seattle Children's. UW Medicine has major academic and service affiliations with Seattle Children's, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, the Veteran's Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle, and the VA Hospital in Boise, Idaho. The UW School of Medicine is the top public institution for biomedical research in funding received from the National Institutes of Health. For more information about UW Medicine, visit http://uwmedicine.washington.edu.




Sunday, April 15, 2012

open access: Survivorship care plans in research and practice - Apr 2012 - CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians



 Blogger's Note: while the focus here is breast/colorectal cancers, research background included gyn cancer

Survivorship care plans in research and practice -  2012 - CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 

 Abstract
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends the use of survivorship care plans (SCPs) for all cancer survivors. Developing useful SCPs requires understanding what survivors and their providers need and how SCPs can be implemented in practice. Published studies investigating the perspectives of stakeholders (survivors, primary care providers, and oncology providers) were reviewed regarding the content and use of SCPs. All National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers were surveyed concerning the extent to which SCPs for survivors of breast and colorectal cancers are in use, their concordance with the IOM's recommendation, and details about SCP delivery. Survivors and primary care providers typically lack the information the IOM suggested should be included in SCPs. Oncology providers view SCPs favorably but express concerns about the feasibility of their implementation. Fewer than one-half (43%) of NCI-designated cancer centers deliver SCPs to their breast or colorectal cancer survivors. Of those that do, none deliver SCPs that include all components recommended by the IOM. Survivors' and providers' opinions about the use of SCPs are favorable, but there are barriers to implementation. SCPs are not widely used in NCI-designated cancer centers. Variation in practice is substantial, and many components recommended by the IOM framework are rarely included. 
                                          

Friday, April 06, 2012

JCO Special Series Overview Table of Contents — April 10, 2012



Table of Contents — April 10, 2012, 30 (11)

 Special Series Overview

Review Articles

Thursday, February 09, 2012

open access: Cancer treatment and care: a new and uneasy world : The Lancet



"......Thinking of the future, we sense oncological needs and expectations growing beyond what can be planned or provided for fairly. A drug like abiraterone, promising benefit in an area of evident clinical need, will have taken 20 years and substantial funds to develop. Early stage drug development is likely to have been undertaken by researchers with charitable or public funding, with the translational and clinical research by commercial entities leading, in abiraterone's case, to indelicate public haggling over how much 1 year of an average patient's life is reasonably worth....."

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Inequity in access to cancer care: a review of the Canadian literature (abstract)



Cancer Causes Control. 2011 Jan 8. [Epub ahead of print]

Inequity in access to cancer care: a review of the Canadian literature.

Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, 5849 University Ave, Mailbox No. 257, Halifax, NS, B3H 4H7, Canada, andre.maddison@dal.ca.

Abstract

Despite the policy and research attention on ensuring equitable access-equal access for equal need-to health care, research continues to identify inequities in access to cancer services. We conducted a literature review to identify the current state of knowledge about inequity in access to cancer health services in Canada in terms of the continuum of care, disease sites, and dimensions of inequity (e.g., income). We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Embase for studies published between 1990 and 2009. We retrieved 51 studies, which examine inequity in access to cancer services from screening to end-of-life care, for multiple cancer types, and a variety of socioeconomic, geographic, and demographic factors that may cause concern for inequity in Canada. This review demonstrates that income has the most consistent influence on inequity in access to screening, while age and geography are most influential for treatment services and end-of-life care, even after adjusting for patient need. Our review also reports on methods used in the literature and new techniques to explore. Equitable access to cancer care is vitally important in all health systems. Obtaining information on the current status of inequities in access to cancer care is a critical first step toward action.

Friday, January 14, 2011

Projections of the Cost of Cancer Care in the United States: 2010–2020 — J. Natl. Cancer Inst.



excerpt/also see Table 5 for projection (cost) estimates:

Recent and Projected Incidence

For most of the cancer sites, incidence has been decreasing, and we estimated a negative annual percent change (Table 1) during the period 1996–2005. The largest decreases in men were for lung, stomach, and colorectal cancers, respectively, −2.72, −2.24, and −2.22 annual percent change in age-adjusted rates. More dramatic decreases were observed for women for ovarian and cervical cancer, −4.71 and −3.95, respectively, annual percent change in age-adjusted rates. Incidence of kidney cancer and melanoma has been increasing in both men and women, and incidence of lymphoma and brain cancer has been increasing in women (Table 1). Among the five major cancer sites, the largest decreases in incidence were observed for lung and colorectal cancers in men, −2.72 and −2.22, respectively, annual percent change in age-adjusted incidence rates (Figure 1; Similar figures for more cancer sites are available at http://costprojections.cancer.gov.).
View this table:
Table 1
Incidence and survival trends used in the incidence and survival trend scenario*