Defining and measuring quality cancer survivorship care: An environmental scan.

Abstract

219 Background: It is recognised that current models of survivorship care are suboptimal and unsustainable. The landmark Institute of Medicine (IOM) report ‘From Cancer Patient to Cancer Survivor: Lost in Transition’ suggested four essential components of survivorship care: prevention of recurrent and new cancers; surveillance for recurrent or second cancers; intervention for consequences of cancer and its treatment, and coordinated care between health providers. The report also recommended “quality of survivorship care measures should be developed... and quality assurance programs implemented to monitor and improve the care that all survivors receive.” Nekhlyudov et al (JNCI 2019) built on the IOM’s recommendations to develop a quality of cancer survivorship care framework. We undertook an environmental scan to understand how quality survivorship care is conceptualised internationally, and what metrics are available. Methods: This scan comprised limited literature review, review of organisations’ websites, and expert consultation to source documents that described and measured quality survivorship care. Documents were assessed against the domains proposed by Nekhlyudov et al. Metrics were categorised as policy, process or outcome measures. Results: The search yielded 40 documents from six countries. There was agreement that quality survivorship care is founded on the IOM elements, expanded by Nekhlyudov et al. The review also noted risk stratification/personalised pathways of care and patient self-management as other elements of quality care. Many countries have proposed or implemented quality measures, with greater emphasis on processes over outcome assessments. Only the USA was found to have implemented policy measures. In the process domain, frequently reported metrics included completion of needs assessments and survivorship care plans, and adherence to recommended follow up guidelines. Regarding outcome measures, patient-reported outcomes and experiences were commonly proposed, however there was a lack of specific elements, or recommended instruments. Conclusions: There is broad agreement on what constitutes quality survivorship care internationally. Future work should consider policy or structural elements that support optimal care. Findings from this scan will inform a modified reactive Delphi study to establish consensus-based criteria for high quality survivorship care. Additional work should consider how to define and implement metrics of quality care, and how to use metrics to improve survivors’ outcomes.