Do Australian state and territory cancer plans include survivorship-related objectives and propose quality survivorship outcomes and measures?

Objective This study reviewed Australian jurisdictional cancer plans to: (i) assess alignment of survivorship-related objectives with recommendations from the 2006 US Institute of Medicine (IOM) survivorship report, and (ii) identify objectives in assessing survivorship outcomes. Methods Current government cancer plans were identified and reviewed for inclusion of survivorship-related objectives, which were coded based on alignment with the 10 IOM recommendations, as well as content relating to outcome assessment and measurement. Results Twelve policy documents were identified from seven Australian states and territories. There was variability in the number of IOM recommendations addressed (between 3 and 8 of 10), the number of survivorship-related objectives (between 4 and 37 per jurisdiction) and the number of survivorship-related outcomes (between 1 and 25 per jurisdiction). Recommendations for raising awareness of survivorship, quality measures and models of survivorship care were more consistently addressed in jurisdictional plans. Recently updated plans appeared to have more survivorship-focused objectives. The importance of measuring survivorship outcomes was highlighted in all 12 cancer plans. Quality of life, other patient reported outcomes, and 5-year survival rates were the most commonly suggested outcomes. There was no consensus on metrics to assess survivorship outcomes, and little detail regarding how to measure proposed outcomes. Conclusion Almost all jurisdictions included survivorship-focused objectives within cancer plans. There was considerable variation in (i) alignment with IOM recommendations, and (ii) focus on survivorship-related objectives, outcomes and outcome measures. Opportunity exists for collaboration and harmonisation of work to develop national guidelines and standards of quality survivorship care.

A randomized stepped care intervention trial targeting posttraumatic stress disorder for surgically hospitalized injury survivors.

OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of a stepped care intervention model targeting posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms after injury. BACKGROUND: Few investigations have evaluated interventions for injured patients with PTSD and related impairments that can be feasibly implemented in trauma surgical settings. METHODS: The investigation was a pragmatic effectiveness trial in which 207 acutely injured hospitalized trauma survivors were screened for high PTSD symptom levels and then randomized to a stepped combined care management, psychopharmacology, and cognitive behavioral psychotherapy intervention (n = 104) or usual care control (n = 103) conditions. The symptoms of PTSD and functional limitations were reassessed at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after the index injury admission. RESULTS: Regression analyses demonstrated that over the course of the year after injury, intervention patients had significantly reduced PTSD symptoms when compared with controls [group by time effect, CAPS (Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale): F(2, 185) = 5.50, P < 0.01; PCL-C (PTSD Checklist Civilian Version): F(4, 185) = 5.45, P < 0.001]. Clinically and statistically significant PTSD treatment effects were observed at the 6-, 9-, and 12-month postinjury assessments. Over the course of the year after injury, intervention patients also demonstrated significant improvements in physical function [MOS SF-36 PCS (Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 Physical Component Summary) main effect: F(1, 172) = 9.87, P < 0.01]. CONCLUSIONS: Stepped care interventions can reduce PTSD symptoms and improve functioning over the course of the year after surgical injury hospitalization. Orchestrated investigative and policy efforts could systematically introduce and evaluate screening and intervention procedures for PTSD at US trauma centers. ( TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00270959).

Enhancing the population impact of collaborative care interventions: mixed method development and implementation of stepped care targeting posttraumatic stress disorder and related comorbidities after acute trauma.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to develop and implement a stepped collaborative care intervention targeting posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and related comorbidities to enhance the population impact of early trauma-focused interventions. METHOD: We describe the design and implementation of the Trauma Survivors Outcomes and Support study. An interdisciplinary treatment development team was composed of trauma surgical, clinical psychiatric and mental health services "change agents" who spanned the boundaries between frontline trauma center clinical care and acute care policy. Mixed method clinical epidemiologic and clinical ethnographic studies informed the development of PTSD screening and intervention procedures. RESULTS: Two hundred seven acutely injured trauma survivors with high early PTSD symptom levels were randomized into the study. The stepped collaborative care model integrated care management (i.e., posttraumatic concern elicitation and amelioration, motivational interviewing and behavioral activation) with cognitive behavioral therapy and pharmacotherapy targeting PTSD. The model was feasibly implemented by frontline acute care masters in social work and nurse practioner providers. CONCLUSIONS: Stepped care protocols targeting PTSD may enhance the population impact of early interventions developed for survivors of individual and mass trauma by extending the reach of collaborative care interventions to acute care medical settings and other nonspecialty posttraumatic contexts.

Collaborative care interventions in general trauma patients.

Collaborative care is a disease management strategy that aims to simultaneously target medical/surgical (eg, physical injury) and psychiatric (eg, posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD] and depression) conditions. Collaborative care interventions hold promise for the delivery of mental health interventions in acute care as they can incorporate frontline trauma center providers, such as social workers and nurses, into early mental health services delivery and can link trauma center care to outpatient services. Initial randomized clinical trial evidence suggests that collaborative care interventions that incorporate evidence-based motivational interviewing targeting alcohol use, as well as pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy targeting PTSD, may reduce both alcohol and PTSD symptoms among injured trauma surgery patients. Trials conducted to date thus suggest that early mental health interventions can be feasibly and effectively delivered from trauma centers. Future collaborative care investigations that refine routine acute care treatment procedures and target acute care policy mandates can improve the quality of mental health care for Americans injured in the wake of individual and mass trauma.