Cited by 5Cancer survivorship and careClinical practice guidelines implementationHealth Policy Implementation Science

Survivorship Care Plans: Reaching a Benchmark and Striving to Achieve Intent

Open access
Stuver, Robert, Faig, Jennifer, Cadorette, Matthew, Decaneas, Will, Kaplan, Irving, VanDeWege, Christine, Weden, Victoria, Kent, Michael +1 more·2020·JCO Oncology Practice

Abstract

PURPOSE: Survivorship care plans (SCPs) have been endorsed by major oncologic organizations despite challenges in implementation and unclear patient-specific benefits. In January 2020, the Commission on Cancer removed a 2018 provision that required accredited programs to deliver SCPs to eligible patients. Programs must determine whether to continue SCP use or begin de-implementation. We detail a framework to increase SCP delivery for programs continuing to provide SCPs as a component of survivorship care and suggest a patient-centered approach to evaluate continued utility amidst updated national standards. METHODS: We surveyed medical, surgical, and radiation oncologists at our academic and community sites to identify barriers to SCP use and performed a Pareto analysis to highlight the most notable barriers. We then designed an intervention that used SCP templates within the medical record, disease-specific recommendations, delegation to nonphysician staff, and provider education. We monitored our intervention via a statistical process control analysis and assessed patient perceptions of SCP usefulness via a questionnaire. RESULTS: Before implementing our process improvements, our SCP completion rate during a 10-month period was 45%. During the 6-month period after our intervention, the SCP completion rate increased to 89%. Greater than 80% of patients who had recently received an SCP found the information helpful and were satisfied with the amount of information received. More than 40% did not remember receiving their original SCP. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated a feasible method for increasing SCP delivery for all cancers across a cancer network and used a patient-specific questionnaire to assess continued value amidst changing national standards.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/op.20.00092

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A previous systematic review of 24 articles comprising 11 nonrandomized and 13 randomized studies concluded that the delivery of a SCP alone is unlikely to achieve the desired benefits.

    “a previous systematic review of 24 articles comprising 11 nonrandomized and 13 randomized studies concluded that the delivery of a SCP alone is unlikely to achieve the desired benefits, and a more comprehensive approach to survivorship care delivery is needed.43,44”
  • A more comprehensive approach to survivorship care delivery is needed.

    “a previous systematic review of 24 articles comprising 11 nonrandomized and 13 randomized studies concluded that the delivery of a SCP alone is unlikely to achieve the desired benefits, and a more comprehensive approach to survivorship care delivery is needed.43,44”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 12 · Cited by 5

Authors
Stuver, R., Faig, J., Cadorette, M., Decaneas, W., Kaplan, I., VanDeWege, C., Weden, V., Kent, M., & Zerillo, J. A.
Affiliations
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA
Venue
JCO Oncology Practice
Published
2020-10
Volume
16
Issue
10
Pages
e1249-e1254
ISSN
  • 2688-1527 (ISSN-L)
  • 2688-1535
OpenAlex
W3045797179
Cited by
5
References
12
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2
FWCI
0.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JCO Oncology Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
survivorship care plans, cancer survivorship, implementation barriers, Pareto analysis, statistical process control, provider education, patient satisfaction, Commission on Cancer accreditation, cancer networks, quality improvement intervention
MeSH terms
Survivorship, Humans, Medical Oncology, Patient Care Planning, Survivors, Benchmarking

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review