Rural comprehensive cancer care: Qualitative analysis of current challenges and opportunities.

PURPOSE: While limited resources can make high-quality, comprehensive, coordinated cancer care provision challenging in rural settings, rural cancer patients often rely on local hospitals for care. To develop resources and strategies to support high-quality local cancer care, it is critical to understand the current experiences of rural cancer care physicians, including perceived strengths and challenges of providing cancer care in rural areas.  METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 cancer providers associated with all 12 non-metropolitan/rural Iowa hospitals that diagnose or treat >100 cancer patients annually. Iterative thematic analysis was conducted to develop domains. FINDINGS: Participants identified geographic proximity and sense of community as strengths of local care. They described decision-making processes and challenges related to referring patients to larger centers for complex procedures, including a lack of dedicated navigators to facilitate and track transfers between institutions and occasional lack of respect from academic physicians. Participants reported a desire for strengthening collaborations with larger urban/academic cancer centers, including access to educational opportunities, shared resources and strategies to collect and monitor data on quality, and clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: Rural cancer care providers are dedicated to providing high-quality care close to home for their patients and would welcome opportunities to increase collaboration with larger centers to improve coordination and comprehensiveness of care, collect and monitor data on quality of care, and access continuing education opportunities. Further research is needed to develop implementation approaches that will extend resources, services, and expertise to rural providers to facilitate high-quality cancer care for all cancer patients.

Effect of rurality and travel distance on contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for unilateral breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Despite lack of survival benefit, demand for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) to treat unilateral breast cancer remains high. High uptake of CPM has been demonstrated in Midwestern rural women. Greater travel distance for surgical treatment is associated with CPM. Our objective was to examine the relationship between rurality and travel distance to surgery with CPM. METHODS: Women diagnosed with stages I-III unilateral breast cancer between 2007 and 2017 were identified using the National Cancer Database. Logistic regression was used to model likelihood of CPM based on rurality, proximity to metropolitan centers, and travel distance. A multinomial logistic regression model compared factors associated with CPM with reconstruction versus other surgical options. RESULTS: Both rurality (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.06-1.15 for non-metro/rural vs. metro) and travel distance (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.33-1.41 for those who traveled 50 + miles vs. < 30 miles) were independently associated with CPM. For women who traveled 30 + miles, odds of receiving CPM were highest for non-metro/rural women (OR 1.33 for 30-49 miles, OR 1.57 for 50 + miles; reference: metro women traveling < 30 miles). Non-metro/rural women who received reconstruction were more likely to undergo CPM regardless of travel distance (ORs 1.11-1.21). Both metro and metro-adjacent women who received reconstruction were more likely to undergo CPM only if they traveled 30 + miles (ORs 1.24-1.30). CONCLUSION: The impact of travel distance on likelihood of CPM varies by patient rurality and receipt of reconstruction. Further research is needed to understand how patient residence, travel burden, and geographic access to comprehensive cancer care services, including reconstruction, influence patient decisions regarding surgery.

Identifying Core Functions of an Evidence-Based Intervention to Improve Cancer Care Quality in Rural Hospitals.

Background: Rural patients experience worse cancer survival outcomes than urban patients despite similar incidence rates, due in part to significant barriers to accessing quality cancer care. Community hospitals in non-metropolitan/rural areas play a crucial role in providing care to patients who desire and are able to receive care locally. However, rural community hospitals typically face challenges to providing comprehensive care due to lack of resources. The University of Kentucky's Markey Cancer Center Affiliate Network (MCCAN) is an effective complex, multi-level intervention, improving cancer care in rural/under-resourced hospitals by supporting them in achieving American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) standards. With the long-term goal of adapting MCCAN for other rural contexts, we aimed to identify MCCAN's core functions (i.e., the components key to the intervention's effectiveness/implementation) using theory-driven qualitative data research methods. Methods: We conducted eight semi-structured virtual interviews with administrators, coordinators, clinicians, and certified tumor registrars from five MCCAN affiliate hospitals that were not CoC-accredited prior to joining MCCAN. Study team members coded interview transcripts and identified themes related to how MCCAN engaged affiliate sites in improving care quality (intervention functions) and implementing CoC standards (implementation functions) and analyzed themes to identify core functions. We then mapped core functions onto existing theories of change and presented the functions to MCCAN leadership to confirm validity and completeness of the functions. Results: Intervention core functions included: providing expertise and templates for achieving accreditation, establishing a culture of quality-improvement among affiliates, and fostering a shared goal of quality care. Implementation core functions included: fostering a sense of community and partnership, building trust between affiliates and Markey, providing information and resources to increase feasibility and acceptability of meeting CoC standards, and mentoring and empowering administrators and clinicians to champion implementation. Conclusion: The MCCAN intervention presents a more equitable strategy of extending the resources and expertise of large cancer centers to assist smaller community hospitals in achieving evidence-based standards for cancer care. Using rigorous qualitative methods, we distilled this intervention into its core functions, positioning us (and others) to adapt the MCCAN intervention to address cancer disparities in other rural contexts.

Tourniquet Application for Bleeding Control in a Rural Trauma System: Outcomes and Implications for Prehospital Providers.

Introduction: Uncontrolled bleeding is a preventable cause of death in rural trauma. Herein, we examined the appropriateness, effectiveness, and safety of tourniquet application for bleeding control in a rural trauma system.Methods: Medical records of adult patients admitted to our academic Level I trauma center between July 2015 and December 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Demographics (age, gender), injury (Injury severity score, Glascow Coma scale, mechanism of injury), tourniquet (type, tourniquet application site, tourniquet duration, place of application and removal, indication), and outcome data (complications such as amputation, acute kidney injury, rhabdomyolysis, or nerve palsy and mortality) were collected. Tourniquet indications, effectiveness, and complications were evaluated. Data were compared to those in urban settings.Results: Ninety-two patients (94 tourniquets) were identified, of which 58.7% incurred penetrating injuries. Eighty-seven tourniquets (92.5%) were applied in the prehospital setting. Twenty tourniquets (21.3%) were applied to patients without an appropriate indication. Two of these tourniquets were applied in a hospital setting, while 18 occurred in the prehospital setting (p = 0.638). Patients with a non-indicated tourniquet presented with a higher hemoglobin level on admission, received less packed red blood cell units within the first 24 hours of hospitalization, and were less likely to require surgery for hemostasis. None of the non-indicated tourniquets led to a complication. Indicated tourniquets were deemed ineffective in seven cases (9.5%); they were all applied in the prehospital setting. The average tourniquet time was 123 min in rural vs. 48 min in urban settings, p < 0.001. There was no significant difference in mortality, amputation rates and incidence of nerve palsy between the rural and urban settings.Conclusion: Even with long transport times, early tourniquet application for hemorrhage control in rural settings is safe with no significant attributable morbidity and mortality compared to published studies on urban civilian tourniquet use. The observed rates of non-indicated and ineffective tourniquets indicate suboptimal tourniquet usage and application. Opportunity exists for standardized hemorrhage control training on the use of direct pressure and pressure dressings, indications for tourniquet use, and effective tourniquet application.

Safety and effectiveness of Factor Eight Inhibitor Bypassing Activity for direct oral anticoagulant-related hemorrhage reversal.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of patients who present with life-threatening bleeding complications has been increasing as the use of direct oral anticoagulation (DOAC) has increased. Therefore, effective reversal agents are urgently needed. Current guidelines recommend the use of prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs) and activated PCCs (aPCC) for reversal of DOAC anticoagulant activity in the setting of traumatic and non-traumatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). However, little data is available. OBJECTIVE: Herein, we investigated the safety and effectiveness of Factor Eight Inhibitor Bypassing Activity [FEIBA (an aPCC)] in a population of patients who required emergent reversal of DOAC for hemorrhage or urgent surgical interventions. METHODS: This is a case series study. Medical records from patients who required emergent reversal of DOAC for life threatening hemorrhage or urgent surgical interventions were collected from February 1, 2014, to April 1, 2017 and reviewed. Data, including demographics as well as safety, outcomes, and dosing of FEIBA for reversal of DOAC effects were collected and descriptive statistics were obtained. RESULTS: Forty-two patients who received FEIBA were included in the study. The rates of thrombotic events (10%), hemorrhage progression (10%), and observed mortality (29%) were similar to rates previously published in the limited literature evaluating aPCC use in this population. CONCLUSION: This case series suggests that FEIBA administration is relatively safe and effective to reverse DOACs in the setting of hemorrhage or need for urgent surgical procedures. Until target-specific reversal agents are available, future studies are warranted to evaluate the effectiveness of aPCC administration for DOAC-associated hemorrhagic complications.