|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 59
59
IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF ONCOLOGY CARE
Appendix
Workshop Agenda
PATIENT-CENTERED CANCER TREATMENT PLANNING:
IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF ONCOLOGY CARE
The Keck Center of the National Academies
500 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Room 100
Workshop Description
The National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship and the National
Cancer Policy Forum are hosting a public workshop addressing patient-
centered cancer treatment planning. Discussions of the cancer care plan-
ning process are often broken down into silos that fail to bring to light the
holistic approach necessary for coordinated, comprehensive cancer care.
While previous Institute of Medicine (IOM) work has focused on the chal-
lenges of care planning for individuals who have completed their treatment
(sometimes referred to as follow-up or survivorship care planning), this
workshop will focus on cancer treatment planning for newly diagnosed
cancer patients.
The workshop agenda will reflect the need to integrate the patient
perspective in cancer treatment planning and will highlight some best
practices in care planning that are currently being utilized by a number of
practitioners. The workshop will include an overview of patient-centered
care and cancer treatment planning, as well as sessions on shared decision
making, communication in the cancer care setting, and patient experiences
with cancer treatment. Models of treatment planning and tools to facili-
tate its use will also be discussed. Workshop presentations and discussions
will examine changes in oncology practice that could promote patient-
centeredness by having patients better understand the goals of treatment
OCR for page 60
60 PATIENT-CENTERED CANCER TREATMENT PLANNING
through a shared decision-making process with their healthcare team from
the moment of diagnosis onward.
February 28, 2010
7:30 a.m. Breakfast and Registration
8:00 a.m. Welcome from the IOM National Cancer Policy
Forum and National Coalition for Cancer
Survivorship
Hal Moses, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, National
Cancer Policy Forum Chair
Tom Sellers, National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship
8:15 a.m. Session 1: Workshop Overview
Betty Ferrell, City of Hope National Medical Center,
Workshop Co-chair
Ellen Stovall, National Coalition for Cancer
Survivorship, Workshop Co-chair
Patient perspective
• ichard Boyajian, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
R
Defining patient-centered care
• arolyn Clancy, Agency for Healthcare Research and
C
Quality
Cancer treatment planning: A means to deliver quality,
patient-centered care
• atricia Ganz, University of California, Los Angeles
P
10:00 a.m. Break
10:15 a.m. Session 2: Theory, Research, and Context for
Patient-Centered Care
Moderator: Sharon Murphy, Institute of Medicine
Presentations and discussions in this session will focus
on how to integrate patient preferences and information
on treatment options and prognosis so that patients
and their care providers, through a shared decision-
making process, can decide upon a care plan. Speakers
OCR for page 61
61
APPENDIX
will discuss the competencies necessary to ensure that
shared decision making is a core component of cancer
treatment planning.
Patient perspective: Understanding patient preferences and
engaging patients in decision making
• essie Gruman, Center for Advancing Health
J
Research perspective: Are patient preferences currently
incorporated in treatment decisions?
• ancy Keating, Harvard Medical School and
N
Brigham and Women’s Hospital
Decision quality
• aren Sepucha, Massachusetts General Hospital and
K
Harvard Medical School
Incorporation of comparative effectiveness research (CER)
into shared decision making: Promises and challenges
• heldon Greenfield, University of California, Irvine
S
Shared decision making in practice
• effrey Peppercorn, Duke University
J
Discussion (30 minutes)
Questions:
• ow can patient preferences be assessed in the
H
context of medical decision making? Are patient
preferences usually taken into account?
• hat is the role of a patient when discussing a
W
treatment plan? What is the role of the care team?
• hat are the barriers to incorporating patient
W
preferences and shared decision making in cancer
treatment planning and which barriers can be
modified?
• hat is decision quality? How can biomedical
W
research findings (for example, comparative
effectiveness research) be communicated to patients
to inform preference-sensitive decision making?
12:30 p.m. Lunch
OCR for page 62
62 PATIENT-CENTERED CANCER TREATMENT PLANNING
1:30 p.m. Session 3: Practice or Professional Perspectives on
Communication
Moderator: Anthony Back, University of Washington
This session will discuss the importance of effective
communication when creating a cancer treatment plan.
Speakers will address patient needs and expectations
regarding communication in the medical setting, as well
as strategies for preparing patients to engage in these
discussions. Speakers will also discuss communication
issues and approaches from a variety of care team
perspectives.
Eliciting patient preferences and preparing patients to
shape their care
• herrie Kaplan, University of California, Irvine
S
Culturally appropriate communication and care
• inda Burhansstipanov, Native American Cancer
L
Research Corporation
Physician perspectives on communication
• nthony Back, University of Washington
A
Oncology nurses: Leveraging an underutilized
communication resource in cancer treatment planning
• arie Bakitas, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical
M
Center
Psychosocial provider perspectives on communication
• lizabeth Clark, National Association of Social
E
Workers
Patient navigation
• ngelina Esparza, American Cancer Society Patient
A
Navigator Program
Discussion (30 minutes)
Questions:
• ow can we ensure that healthcare professionals are
H
prepared to engage patients and family members
(including adult learners, people in distress, older
adults) in cancer treatment planning discussions?
How do we build in these competencies in health
professional training?
OCR for page 63
63
APPENDIX
• hat matters most to patients when communicating
W
with members of their care team?
• ow can healthcare professionals tailor
H
communication to individual patients’ needs?
• ow can communication be improved when
H
patients see multiple providers or are transitioning
to different treatments? How can a treatment plan
facilitate this?
4:15 p.m. Break
4:30 p.m. Session 4: Patient Perspectives
Moderator: Patricia Ganz, University of California, Los
Angeles
This panel discussion will offer an opportunity
for patients and family members to describe their
experience with cancer treatment and to react to
workshop presentations and discussions.
Panel Discussion
• obert Erwin, Marti Nelson Cancer Foundation
R
• ark Gorman, National Coalition for Cancer
M
Survivorship
• nne Willis, National Coalition for Cancer
A
Survivorship
Questions:
• hat is your (or your family member’s) experience
W
with cancer treatment? Was there a treatment plan
in place? Were shared decision making and good
communication a part of the process? What could
have been improved?
• hat aspects of a cancer treatment plan are most
W
important to patients?
• id you find a particular presentation or discussion
D
particularly compelling? Were there any discussion
points that you strongly agreed or disagreed with?
5:30 p.m. Adjourn, Day 1
OCR for page 64
64 PATIENT-CENTERED CANCER TREATMENT PLANNING
March 1, 2010
7:30 a.m. Breakfast and Registration
8:00 a.m. Welcome Back, Overview of Day 2
Ellen Stovall, National Coalition for Cancer
Survivorship
8:15 a.m. Session 5: Models of Practice and Implementation
Moderator: Thomas Smith, VCU Massey Cancer Center
In this session, speakers will describe examples of care
planning approaches in use that could serve as models
for wider implementation. In addition, speakers and
discussions will focus on how quality metrics and
electronic tools can impact the implementation and
effectiveness of cancer treatment planning.
Models
Evaluating treatment plans and summary templates in the
Breast Cancer Registry Pilot
• nn Partridge, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
A
Lessons learned in survivorship planning
• eborah Mayer, University of North Carolina
D
Advance care planning
• homas Smith, Virginia Commonwealth University
T
Massey Cancer Center
Chronic care model
• d Wagner, MacColl Institute-Group Health
E
Research Institute
Tools and Metrics to Facilitate Cancer Treatment
Planning
Electronic health records and care planning
• awrence Shulman, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
L
Measuring effectiveness: Quality metrics in cancer
treatment planning
• ussell Hoverman, Texas Oncology and US
R
Oncology
OCR for page 65
65
APPENDIX
Discussion (45 minutes)
Questions:
• ow can models of cancer treatment planning be
H
evaluated and disseminated to encourage broader
implementation?
• hat are some of the lessons from different
W
models of treatment planning that could improve
implementation and quality of cancer treatment
plans?
• n what ways can electronic health records facilitate
I
cancer treatment planning? What electronic tools
can assist the formation and discussion of a cancer
treatment plan with a patient?
• an quality metrics facilitate implementation
C
of cancer treatment planning? What metrics are
important for assessing the effectiveness of cancer
treatment plans?
11:30 a.m. Lunch (please pick up lunch and return for next
session)
12:00 p.m. Session 6: Next Steps for Achieving Better Cancer
Treatment Planning
Moderator: Alison Smith, C-Change
The concluding session of the workshop will provide a
summary of key themes and issues that emerged from
workshop discussions and presentations. Panelists and
workshop participants can describe some of the lessons
learned from past experiences with cancer treatment
planning and have the opportunity to comment on
important components of treatment planning that may
improve oncology care. Discussions may also focus on
policy or research needs that may encourage greater use
of treatment planning in the future.
Summary of Key Workshop Themes
• lison Smith, C-Change
A
OCR for page 66
66 PATIENT-CENTERED CANCER TREATMENT PLANNING
Panel Discussion
• ichard Boyajian, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
R
• obert Erwin, Marti Nelson Cancer Foundation
R
• ark Gorman, National Coalition for Cancer
M
Survivorship
• lizabeth Goss, Turner & Goss LLP
E
• haron Murphy, Institute of Medicine
S
• nne Willis, National Coalition for Cancer
A
Survivorship
Questions:
• hat are the barriers to implementing cancer
W
treatment planning from the patient, professional,
and system perspective?
• hat are some potential policy opportunities in
W
cancer treatment planning from a federal, state,
institutional, or association perspective?
• hat are the research priorities for driving policy
W
and practice?
• hat incentives could encourage greater engagement
W
in cancer treatment planning by patients,
professionals, and healthcare institutions?
2:00 p.m. Adjourn
