Metrics to evaluate treatment summaries and survivorship care plans: A scorecard

Survivorship care plan preferences of cancer survivors and health care providers: a systematic review and quality appraisal of the evidence

“…The reasons for the lack of supporting evidence for the efficacy of TS/SCP remain unclear, but a growing body of literature suggests that there are significant barriers to the feasibility, acceptability, and implementation of TS/SCP [10,16,18,19].…”

“…The IOM fact sheet from the 2005 report suggested 18 components for the TS/SCP (7 for the record of care and 11 for the care plan), each of which were bullet points containing multiple elements to be documented [1]. In an effort to create a metric scorecard, Palmer and colleagues identified 92 separate items for inclusion on a TS/SCP (60 for the TS, 32 for the SCP) based upon the IOM report recommendations [19]. A number of factors impair the ability to provide TS/SCP to survivors: disparity and variability amongst practice settings (i.e., academic, community, urban, and rural), access to electronic health records, computerized TS/SCP programs such as Journey Forward, staffing, approval and support among practice setting administrators, and myriad other factors [24,25].…”

Survivorship care models for breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors: a systematic review

“…They include services targeting cancer prevention, cancer recurrence surveillance, and the management of long-term complications. With respect to the SCPs constructed in the model, they could be assessed using justified criteria either by employing validated tools like the scorecard for breast cancer survivors or seeking experts' consensus through the Delphi method [36,41]. The cancer-specific SCP templates provided by ASCO could serve as valuable references for further streamlining and discussion [42,43].…”

Transitioning Patients to Survivorship Care: A Systematic Review

“…Care interventions must be measured and structured against the standards of care driving them. Tools to do this have been developed by researchers such as Palmer et al (2013).…”