Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2020
Care Coordination for Breast Cancer Survivors in Urban Underserved Communities: Will Treatment Summaries and Survivorship Care Plans Be Enough?
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hamlish Tamara, Liu Li, Zhang Zuoli, Sohmer Dana, Moton Zakiya, Johnson Daniel, Frolova Anna, Olopade Olufunmilayo, Hong Susan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined cancer care coordination at federally qualified health centers (FHQCs). The Commission on Cancer's (CoC) standard 3.3, i.e., treatment summaries and survivorship care plans (TS-SCPs), is aimed at improving communication between cancer specialists and primary care providers (PCPs) across all healthcare systems. Whether this will improve care at FQHCs is unclear. We sought to understand breast cancer care coordination at FQHCs before the stepwise implementation of standard 3.3.
METHODS: In 2014, we conducted a retrospective chart review at five Chicago FQHCs. We used ICD-9 codes to identify 109 breast cancer cases diagnosed within 5 years of the chart review. We examined charts for (1) external cancer records, (2) PCP documentation of breast cancer histories, and (3) documentation of PCP engagement in cancer-relevant follow-up care.
RESULTS: Less than 50% of the charts had PCP documentation of more than one area of cancer-relevant follow-up care. Availability of external records did not increase PCP engagement in cancer-relevant follow-up care. Instead, PCPs who documented information about their patient's breast cancer treatments also documented more cancer-relevant follow-up care.
CONCLUSION: Before the stepwise implementation of TS-SCPs, less than 50% of the charts had PCP documentation of more than one area of cancer-related follow-up care. The TS-SCP is designed to facilitate care coordination between specialists and PCPs through increased communication. Our results suggest the availability of external cancer information did not necessarily translate into care delivery. This suggests communication of information alone is insufficient.
METHODS: In 2014, we conducted a retrospective chart review at five Chicago FQHCs. We used ICD-9 codes to identify 109 breast cancer cases diagnosed within 5 years of the chart review. We examined charts for (1) external cancer records, (2) PCP documentation of breast cancer histories, and (3) documentation of PCP engagement in cancer-relevant follow-up care.
RESULTS: Less than 50% of the charts had PCP documentation of more than one area of cancer-relevant follow-up care. Availability of external records did not increase PCP engagement in cancer-relevant follow-up care. Instead, PCPs who documented information about their patient's breast cancer treatments also documented more cancer-relevant follow-up care.
CONCLUSION: Before the stepwise implementation of TS-SCPs, less than 50% of the charts had PCP documentation of more than one area of cancer-related follow-up care. The TS-SCP is designed to facilitate care coordination between specialists and PCPs through increased communication. Our results suggest the availability of external cancer information did not necessarily translate into care delivery. This suggests communication of information alone is insufficient.