PURPOSE The Commission on Cancer seeks to promote robust survivorship programs among accredited cancer programs. In practice, cancer programs' survivorship programs range from cursory (eg, developing care plans without robust services) to robust (eg, facilitating follow-up care). To inform cancer programs' future efforts, in this study, we identified the implementation strategies that cancer programs used to achieve robust survivorship programs, distinguishing them from cursory programs. METHODS We sampled 39 cancer programs across the United States with approaches to survivorship program implementation ranging from cursory to robust on the basis of LIVESTRONG survivorship care consensus elements. Within sampled cancer programs, we conducted in-depth semistructured interviews with a total of 42 health care professionals. We used template analysis to distinguish implementation strategies used in cancer programs with robust survivorship programs from strategies that yielded cursory survivorship programs. RESULTS Cancer programs with robust survivorship programs established clear systems survivorship care and formal committees to improve the survivorship care processes. They sought buy-in from multiple stakeholders to leverage cancer program resources and defined clear roles with shared accountability among multidisciplinary groups. By contrast, cancer programs with cursory survivorship programs reported less consistency in survivorship care processes and lacked buy-in from key stakeholders. They had limited resources, faced persistent structural concerns, and had insufficient clarity in roles among team members. CONCLUSION Accrediting bodies may consider incorporating the implementation strategies that robust survivorship programs have used as guidance for supporting cancer programs in operationalizing survivorship care and evaluating the use of these strategies during the accreditation and review process.
209 Background: The Commission on Cancer (CoC) seeks to promote comprehensive approaches to implementing survivorship programs among accredited cancer programs. In practice, cancer programs’ approaches range from cursory (e.g., developing care plans without robust services) to comprehensive (e.g., facilitating follow-up care). This study identified strategies that were unique to cancer programs with comprehensive approaches to implementing survivorship programs. Methods: We sampled 39 CoC-accredited cancer programs with approaches to survivorship program implementation ranging from cursory to comprehensive, as reported in CoC annual surveys. Within sampled cancer programs, we conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with a total of 42 healthcare professionals (1-2/program). We identified strategies unique to cancer programs with comprehensive approaches by comparing them to cancer programs with cursory approaches. Results: Cancer programs with comprehensive approaches to implementing survivorship programs had formal committees with ample opportunities to evaluate the progress, revise roles, and acquire multiple stakeholders’ support. Keeping a good record system enabled these cancer programs to meet accreditation requirements and improve processes. Buy-in from upper management and key physicians was deemed crucial in leveraging cancer program resources. These programs also had clear roles with shared accountability among multidisciplinary groups. Like cancer programs with comprehensive approaches to implementing survivorship programs, many cancer programs with cursory approaches also had formal committees; however, cancer programs with cursory approaches lacked buy-in from key stakeholders, relying on few staff or a champion for implementation. Cancer programs with cursory approaches had limited resources, cumbersome processes, and team members with unclear roles. Conclusions: Cancer programs with comprehensive approaches to survivorship program implementation gained broad stakeholder buy-in and established clear team member roles with shared accountability. Study findings will inform more than 1500 CoC-accredited US cancer programs’ approaches to implementing survivorship programs. At the conference, we will have results from quantitative and measures validation companion studies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.