Clinicians’ perspectives on strategies to improve cross-institutional collaboration and coordination of pancreatic cancer care for rural patients.

Abstract

e13532 Background: Rural pancreatic cancer patients often lack access to high-volume pancreatic cancer specialists. This lack of access can result in fragmented cancer care—when patients receive care at multiple institutions—and necessitates that specialists engage in cross-institutional collaboration. In the context of fragmented pancreatic cancer care, the strategies specialists use to facilitate collaboration across institutions are poorly understood. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with cancer specialists (medical, surgical, and radiation oncologists) from a high-volume pancreas cancer center (n = 9) and rural community cancer centers (n = 11) to examine specialists’ coordination practices related to treating and co-managing pancreatic cancer patients across their respective institutions. Using qualitative methods, two of the co-authors independently coded the interview transcripts to identify themes related to cross-institutional coordination practices, noting improvement opportunities and facilitative strategies. Results: Cancer specialists described multiple practices to coordinate cross-institutional care including one-on-one phone calls and using a shared electronic medical record or secure email to exchange clinical notes. In recognizing the limitations of these practices, specialists acknowledged the need to develop and implement communication systems that could facilitate real-time discussions and information sharing between high-volume and rural specialists to coordinate diagnostic and treatment plans. Cross-institutional virtual tumor boards were viewed as a potentially useful approach to foster shared clinical decision-making and treatment plan development across institutions, but specialists perceived that logistical, institutional, and technological challenges could limit the use of this approach. Regardless, specialists indicated that cross-institutional virtual tumor boards could help disseminate treatment recommendations as well as identify barriers to care for mutually-shared rural cancer patients. Specialists also indicated that a dedicated patient navigator could help facilitate cross-institutional coordination by bridging communication between specialists while also assisting cancer patients with issues related to housing, transportation, scheduling, and treatment finances. Conclusions: It is important for cancer specialists treating rural cancer patients to have strategies that support efficient communication and decision-making. Cross-institutional virtual tumor boards and dedicated patient navigators are two such strategies that may help facilitate collaboration between high-volume and rural cancer specialists. Future research should examine the impact of these strategies on patients receiving cancer care at multiple institutions.