Examination of Health System Resources and Costs Associated With Transitioning Cancer Survivors to Primary Care: A Propensity-Score-Matched Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND:: Transitioning low-risk cancer survivors back to their primary care provider (PCP) has been shown to be safe but the effect on health system resources and costs has not been examined. METHODS:: A Well Follow-Up Care Initiative (WFCI) was implemented in the publicly funded health system. Low-risk breast cancer (BC) survivors in the WFCI intervention group were transitioned from oncologist-led cancer clinics to PCPs. We compared health system costs ($2,014 in Canadian dollars) and resource utilization in this intervention group with that in propensity-score-matched nontransitioned BC survivors (ie, controls) diagnosed in the same year, with similar disease profile and patient characteristics using publicly funded administrative databases. RESULTS:: A total of 2,324 BC survivors from the WFCI intervention group were 1:1 matched to controls and observed for 25 months. Compared with controls, survivors in the intervention group incurred a similar number of PCP visits (6.9 v 7.5) and fewer oncologist visits (0.3 v 1.2) per person-year. Fewer survivors in the intervention group (20.1%) were hospitalized than in the control group (24.4%). There were no differences in emergency visits. More survivors in the intervention group had mammograms (82.6% v 73.1%), but other diagnostic tests were less frequent. There was a 39.3% reduction in overall mean annual costs ($6,575 v $10,832) and a 22.1% reduction in overall median annual costs ($2,261 v $2,903). Overall survival in the intervention group was not worse than controls. CONCLUSION:: Transitioning low-risk BC survivors to PCPs was associated with lower health system resource use and a lower annual cost per patient than matched controls. The WFCI model represents a reasonable approach at the population level to delivering quality care for low-risk BC survivors that seems to be cost effective.

Supporting models to transition breast cancer survivors to primary care: formative evaluation of a cancer care Ontario initiative.

PURPOSE: Many breast cancer (BC) survivors continue to be seen by specialists for routine follow-up care despite growing evidence that transitioning appropriate BC survivors to primary care is safe and effective. We describe the formative evaluation of an initiative involving the development and implementation of sustainable models of follow-up care for BC survivors across 14 Regional Cancer Centers (RCC) in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: After extensive consultation, each RCC received catalyst funding for the initiative. Detailed work plans were developed locally and submitted to Cancer Care Ontario. Each region had a designated lead and support from primary care. Funding could be used to develop any aspect of the model. Formative evaluation of each model was conducted with descriptive analysis of the model created, including summative description of how resources were used, the number of survivors transitioned, and preliminary results from patient surveys of experience at transition. RESULTS: Each region developed a unique model that included clearly identified structures and processes of care. All regions used survivorship care plans and patient education materials. Three main models of follow-up care were developed: (1) direct to primary care, (2) transition clinic, and (3) shared care. A total of 3,418 BC survivors transitioned between March 2012 and September 2013. Patient experience surveys were distributed by 12 regions, gathering responses from 752 BC survivors, with 85% reporting that they felt adequately prepared for the transition. CONCLUSION: Using the approach described, wide-scale transition of appropriate BC survivors from oncology-led practice is feasible over a fairly short timeframe.

Toward a definition of competency-based education in medicine: a systematic review of published definitions.

BACKGROUND: Competency-based education (CBE) has emerged in the health professions to address criticisms of contemporary approaches to training. However, the literature has no clear, widely accepted definition of CBE that furthers innovation, debate, and scholarship in this area. AIM: To systematically review CBE-related literature in order to identify key terms and constructs to inform the development of a useful working definition of CBE for medical education. METHODS: We searched electronic databases and supplemented searches by using authors' files, checking reference lists, contacting relevant organizations and conducting Internet searches. Screening was carried out by duplicate assessment, and disagreements were resolved by consensus. We included any English- or French-language sources that defined competency-based education. Data were analyzed qualitatively and summarized descriptively. RESULTS: We identified 15,956 records for initial relevancy screening by title and abstract. The full text of 1,826 records was then retrieved and assessed further for relevance. A total of 173 records were analyzed. We identified 4 major themes (organizing framework, rationale, contrast with time, and implementing CBE) and 6 sub-themes (outcomes defined, curriculum of competencies, demonstrable, assessment, learner-centred and societal needs). From these themes, a new definition of CBE was synthesized. CONCLUSION: This is the first comprehensive systematic review of the medical education literature related to CBE definitions. The themes and definition identified should be considered by educators to advance the field.