3.9 Article

Do Survivorship Care Plans Make a Difference? A Primary Care Provider Perspective

Journal

JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY PRACTICE
Volume 7, Issue 5, Pages 314-318

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JOP.2010.000208

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Lance Armstrong Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: The growing numbers of cancer survivors will challenge the ability of oncologists to provide ongoing surveillance care. Tools such as survivorship care plans (SCPs) are needed to effectively care for these patients. The UCLA-LIVESTRONG Survivorship Center of Excellence has been providing SCPs to cancer survivors and their providers since 2006. We sought to examine views on the value and impact of SCPs from a primary care provider (PCP) perspective. Methods: As part of a quality improvement project, we invited 32 PCPs who had received at least one SCP to participate in a semistructured interview focused on (1) the perceived value of SCPs for patient management and (2) PCP attitudes toward follow-up care for cancer survivors. Interviews were tape-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. Results: Fifteen PCPs participated in the interviews and had received a total of 30 SCPs. Ten of them indicated reading the SCPs before being contacted for the interview. All 10 PCPs indicated that the SCP provided additional information about the patient's cancer history and/or recommendations for follow-up care, and eight reported a resulting change in patient care. PCPs identified useful elements of the SCP that assisted them with patient care, and they valued the comprehensive format of the SCP. PCPs indicated that after reading the SCPs they felt more confident and better prepared to care for the cancer survivor. Conclusion: SCPs were highly valued by these PCPs, increasing their knowledge about survivors' cancer history and recommended surveillance care and influencing patient care.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available