Moving forward after cancer: successful implementation of a colorectal cancer patient-centered transitions program.

PURPOSE: Cancer survivors transitioning between academic comprehensive cancer systems and community general practice settings are vulnerable to discontinuity, inconsistency and variation in care, inappropriate surveillance testing, and a sense of isolation and loss. Though these issues have been well recognized for over a decade and a half in the survivorship, oncologic, and health services literature, there remains a dearth of positive examples of models that have been well received by both the transitioned patient and the providers on either side of the handoff. We herein describe a sustained positive example of a transitions program. This program centers on standardized and personalized survivorship care plans (SCP) to guide follow-up care and recovery. METHODS: Following the province-wide introduction of a transitions program for treated stages II and III colorectal cancer (CRC) patients, a post-implementation survey was mailed to transitioned patients with the primary outcome evaluated the patients' perception of improved continuity of care and the main instrument used the Patient Continuity of Care Questionnaire. This was compared against a previously published pre-implementation historical control. RESULTS: The data presented comparing pre- and post-implementation patient cohorts reflect significantly improved patient-reported perceptions regarding the enhanced continuity and coordination of their follow-up and survivorship care after the province-wide introduction of a formal transitions process. This SCP intervention has been sustained post implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Using, as a starting-point, a standardized electronically SCP, CancerCare Manitoba has successfully facilitated a jurisdiction-wide implementation of a scalable, reproducible, and adaptable transitions program. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: This intervention at the time of transition back to the community has enhanced CRC survivor perception of continuity and coordination of follow-up care.

Wait Time from Suspicion to Surgery for Breast Cancer in Manitoba.

INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer in women. The pathway for its diagnosis and treatment is relatively standardized. Nevertheless, there can be significant delays affecting the journey. The aim of this retrospective study is to describe the BC wait times (WT) from suspicion to first surgery in Manitoba and to examine factors associated with WT variability. METHODS: The cohort is composed of patients with stages I-III breast cancer who were diagnosed between September 1, 2009, and August 31, 2010, and referred to a cancer center. Patients' journeys were tracked and divided into three sequential intervals from suspicion to first diagnostic test, from first diagnostic test to diagnosis and from diagnosis to first surgery. RESULTS: Four hundred and four patients were included of whom 134 presented through the screening program. There was no difference between the study cohort and population data from the provincial Cancer Registry concerning the distribution of age, stage of cancer or residence. The median WT from suspicion to surgery was 78 days. In the screen-detected group (SD), a difference in median WT from suspicion to first diagnostic test was found for distance. This finding was first to test location, where those who travel less had longer WT than those who have longer journeys. Patients who went to centers that offer both imaging and biopsy services, even if the required test is imaging only, had to wait longer than those who went to centers that provide imaging only. SD patients needing more than one diagnostic test had a longer WT from the first test to pathological diagnosis if the first test did not include a biopsy. Patients who were seen by surgeons before final pathological diagnosis had a shorter WT from diagnosis to first surgery than those who had the surgical consult after tissue diagnosis was made. A delay to surgery was observed in the whole cohort if a plastic surgeon is required in addition to the surgical oncologist and the non-screen detected group if a radiologist is necessary. CONCLUSIONS: Variability in WT from suspicion to surgical management was found between various BC patient groups and between diagnostic centers with different types of services. The order of the provided diagnostic and surgical services may have contributed to WT. Addressing this variability by restructuring the care pathway and improving communication between different disciplines, has the potential to reduce WT.