112296-132

Gaps in survivorship care plan delivery and potential benefits to survivorship care.

Subcategory: 
Category: 
Patient and Survivor Care
Session Type and Session Title: 
General Poster Session, Patient and Survivor Care
Abstract Number: 

9594

Citation: 

J Clin Oncol 31, 2013 (suppl; abstr 9594)

Author(s): 

Laura Pence Forsythe, Carla Parry, Catherine M. Alfano, Erin E. Kent, Corinne Leach, David Haggstrom, Patricia A. Ganz, Noreen Aziz, Julia Howe Rowland; Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Washington, DC; National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD; Office of Cancer Survivorship, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA; Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN; NSABP; and the Division of Cancer Prevention and Control Research, UCLA's Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA; National Institute of Nursing Research, Bethesda, MD; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD


Abstracts that were granted an exception in accordance with ASCO's Conflict of Interest Policy are designated with a caret symbol (^).

Abstract Disclosures

Abstract: 

Background: Survivorship care plans (SCPs), consisting of a treatment summary and follow-up plan, are intended to promote coordination of post-treatment cancer care. Yet, little is known about the provision of these documents by oncologists to primary care physicians (PCPs). This study compared self-reported oncologist provision and PCP receipt of treatment summaries and follow-up plans, characterized oncologists who reported consistent provision of these documents to PCPs, and examined associations between PCP receipt of these documents and survivorship care. Methods: A nationally representative sample of medical oncologists (N=1130) and primary care physicians (PCPs; N=1020) were surveyed regarding follow-up care for breast and colon cancer survivors using the cross-sectional Survey of Physician Attitudes Regarding the Care of Cancer Survivors (SPARCCS) in 2009. Results: Nearly half of oncologists reported always/almost always providing treatment summaries, while 20.2% reported always/almost always providing SCPs (treatment summary + follow-up plan). Approximately one-third of PCPs indicated always/almost always receiving treatment summaries, while 13.4% reported always/almost always receiving SCPs. Oncologists who reported training in late and long-term effects of cancer and use of electronic medical records were more likely to report SCP provision (p<0.05). PCP receipt of SCPs was associated with better PCP-reported care coordination, physician-physician communication, and confidence in survivorship care knowledge compared to receipt of neither treatment summaries nor SCPs (p<0.05). Conclusions: Providing SCPs to PCPs may enhance survivorship care coordination, physician-physician communication, and PCP confidence in caring for survivors. However, a minority of oncologists report routinely delivering SCPs to PCPs. Considerable progress will be necessary to achieve sharing of SCPs among oncologists and PCPs.