TY - JOUR
T1 - Status of cancer care at network sites of the nation's academic cancer centers
AU - Gerson, Stanton L.
AU - Shaw, Kate
AU - Harrison, Louis B.
AU - Holcombe, Randall F.
AU - Hutchins, Laura
AU - Lee, Carrie B.
AU - Loehrer, Patrick J.
AU - Mulkerin, Daniel
AU - Purcell, W. Thomas
AU - Teston, Lois
AU - Weiner, Louis M.
AU - Weiner, George J.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 JNCCN-Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
PY - 2021/6
Y1 - 2021/6
N2 - Background: Cancer care coordination across major academic medical centers and their networks is evolving rapidly, but the spectrum of organizational efforts has not been described. We conducted a mixedmethods survey of leading cancer centers and their networks to document care coordination and identify opportunities to improve geographically dispersed care. Methods: A mixed-methods survey was sent to 91 cancer centers in the United States and Canada. We analyzed the number and locations of network sites; access to electronic medical records (EMRs); clinical research support and participation at networks; use of patient navigators, care paths, and qualitymeasures; and physician workforce. Responses were collected via Qualtrics software between September 2017 and December 2018. Results: Of the 69 responding cancer centers, 74% were NCI-designated. Eighty-seven percent of respondents were part of a matrix health system, and 13% were freestanding. Fifty-six reported having network sites. Forty-three respondents use navigators for disease-specific populations, and 24 use them for all patients. Thirty-five respondents use ≥1 types of care path. Fiftyseven percent of networks had complete, integrated access to theirmain center's EMRs. Thirty-nine respondents said the main center provides funding for clinical research at networks, with 22 reporting the main center provides all funding. Thirty-five said the main center provided pharmacy support at the networks, with 15 indicating the main center provides 100% pharmacy support. Certification program participation varied extensively across networks. Conclusions: The data show academic cancer centers have extensive involvement in network cancer care, often extending into rural communities. Coordinating care through improved clinical trial access and greater use of patient navigation, care paths, coordinated EMRs, and quality measures is likely to improve patient outcomes. Although it is premature to draw firm conclusions, the survey results are appropriate for mapping next steps and data queries.
AB - Background: Cancer care coordination across major academic medical centers and their networks is evolving rapidly, but the spectrum of organizational efforts has not been described. We conducted a mixedmethods survey of leading cancer centers and their networks to document care coordination and identify opportunities to improve geographically dispersed care. Methods: A mixed-methods survey was sent to 91 cancer centers in the United States and Canada. We analyzed the number and locations of network sites; access to electronic medical records (EMRs); clinical research support and participation at networks; use of patient navigators, care paths, and qualitymeasures; and physician workforce. Responses were collected via Qualtrics software between September 2017 and December 2018. Results: Of the 69 responding cancer centers, 74% were NCI-designated. Eighty-seven percent of respondents were part of a matrix health system, and 13% were freestanding. Fifty-six reported having network sites. Forty-three respondents use navigators for disease-specific populations, and 24 use them for all patients. Thirty-five respondents use ≥1 types of care path. Fiftyseven percent of networks had complete, integrated access to theirmain center's EMRs. Thirty-nine respondents said the main center provides funding for clinical research at networks, with 22 reporting the main center provides all funding. Thirty-five said the main center provided pharmacy support at the networks, with 15 indicating the main center provides 100% pharmacy support. Certification program participation varied extensively across networks. Conclusions: The data show academic cancer centers have extensive involvement in network cancer care, often extending into rural communities. Coordinating care through improved clinical trial access and greater use of patient navigation, care paths, coordinated EMRs, and quality measures is likely to improve patient outcomes. Although it is premature to draw firm conclusions, the survey results are appropriate for mapping next steps and data queries.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85110092351&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.6004/jnccn.2020.7656
DO - 10.6004/jnccn.2020.7656
M3 - Article
C2 - 33706258
AN - SCOPUS:85110092351
SN - 1540-1405
VL - 19
SP - 726
EP - 732
JO - Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN
JF - Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN
IS - 6
ER -