This supplement explores how the interfaces between primary and subspecialty care for cancer provide insights that could help close the gap between what is known about good medicine and what is done in medical practice. The articles presented here started as a discussion of cancer care among primary care and subspecialty care providers in the United States and Canada at the October 2007 North American Primary Care Research meeting in Vancouver, Canada. The discussion highlighted the challenge that simply providing coverage and a system to obtain care does not insure closure of the chasm between what is known and practiced in medicine. We hope that sharing this discussion and expanding the scope of our considerations will contribute to closing the quality chasm identified by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in its 2001 report, Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century (1). Since the series of classic reports by the IOM (1,2), consensus has been growing that health care is not realizing its full potential in the United States (1,3). Cutting-edge advances in medicine appear in leading American journals on a regular basis, but the United States is ranked 13th in infant mortality and last among 19 industrialized nations in its ability to reduce mortality because of avoidable causes of death (3,4). The only measure of health care where the United States leads is in cost per capita (5). Although research has examined our system of care, it must be accelerated and focused to identify actionable improvements. Critiques of the US health-care system emphasize the Nation's poor performance compared with other developed countries. One obvious factor is that 19.6% of the non-elderly adult population in the United States does not have health insurance at any given moment, and this affects their ability to obtain care (6). Recommended improvements to the US health-care system have emphasized reducing costs of care and increasing insurance coverage. Creating a method of reimbursement that allows all citizens to receive care and aligns incentives and practices is critical to improving the health of Americans. However, the process of care for those who do have access also must be addressed to achieve high-quality outcomes (7). The IOM reports on health care in general and cancer specifically make a strong case that health care in the United States is a fragmented and uncoordinated process that does not deliver the quality that is possible with what we know in medicine today (1,2). Achieving improvements in care must therefore consider how to expand both the pool of people who have access to care and the process of care once they receive it. The means forward to a successful approach to care is not entirely clear. Recognizing the limitations in the US health-care system, the IOM reports Crossing the Quality Chasm and Ensuring Quality Cancer Care identify six principles that must be the ultimate goal of systematic change to improve care. These principles are safety, effectiveness, patient-centeredness, timeliness, efficiency, and equity (1,2). The reports also note that no prescription exists for how to carry out such systematic change (1,2). Since the IOM reports were published, many have considered this challenge (1,2,8–10), and their work has led to a recognition that care is affected by multiple levels of influence. The current health-care reform effort in the United States aims to ensure that the majority of people have access to a system of care in which they can obtain coverage regardless of employment and without fear of losing it if they become sick or unemployed. However, in Canada, where such a system of care has been in place for many years, the mere fact of having a system does not ensure that it delivers evidence-based care that meets the principles outlined by the IOM report. Canada ranks 15th out of 17 in infant mortality and 13th out of 18 among industrialized nations in its ability to reduce mortality because of avoidable causes of death (4,11). To make progress in achieving the principles set out in the IOM report, we need to clarify how a health-care system can not only ensure coverage but also facilitate the process of care. Improvements have been demonstrated in breast cancer screening for ambulatory patients and myocardial infarction and pneumonia for hospitalized patients, but we need to address broader systematic changes across care in general. The entire spectrum of cancer care from screening end of life is a step in that direction. (12,13). In this supplement, we consider the process of cancer care from the perspective of the people responsible for providing that care, and we include insights from practitioners in Canada and the United States. We also include the perspectives of patients who are affected by the process. We define “process of cancer care” as the sum of the types of care, transitions, steps, and interfaces that must be traversed to receive health care across the cancer continuum (Table 1). Furthermore, we define “system of care” as one that not only provides coverage but also develops an infrastructure for communication that facilitates care delivery consistent with the IOM's six principles. Care across the cancer continuum encompasses different types of care, including risk assessment, detection, diagnosis, primary treatment, survivorship and surveillance, and end-of-life care (Figure 1) (10). The process of cancer care The process of cancer care Adapted from Zapka et al. 2003 (10) Types and transitions in care that constitute the process of care across the cancer continuum. Each of these types of care and the transitions between them involve steps that pose different challenges to individual patients, families, and physicians. For example, detection may occur through screening or testing following symptomatic presentation. Screening and symptomatic presentation each involve multiple steps that require coordination and a different balance of technical medical skills and logistical and emotional support. When detection of cervical abnormalities occurs by screening, for example, it often starts with a Papanicolaou test in primary care and repeated primary care visits to clarify the persistence of any abnormality. Persistent and/or severe abnormalities lead to a referral to an obstetrician/gynecologist because he or she has the expertise required to make the final diagnosis. Finding breast cancer through screening is different, however, because it involves an imaging technique that cannot be done by primary care physicians. Diagnosis of breast cancer may involve multiple steps, such as referral to a radiologist for further imaging or to a surgeon for a biopsy. Each visit is a step in screening or symptomatic detection, and every type of care involves multiple steps and interfaces. Adding to the complexity of cancer care through these phases is the multiplicity of providers and institutions that are involved. At the beginning and end of the cancer continuum, most care involves primary care providers, whereas the care of subspecialists is central to diagnosis and treatment. After primary treatment is complete, care may move back and forth from primary care to subspecialty services if an abnormality arises or a nononcology problem needs attention. Toward the end of life, care may involve the oncologist and the primary care provider, as well as other organizations such as hospice. Central to the process of care across the continuum is the transfer of information and responsibility from one institution to another, from one physician to another, from physicians to staff, and from providers to patients and families. Providers and patients must share an understanding of the disease, the therapy, and its consequences, and they all must know who must do what and when. The exchange of information and responsibility is particularly important during transitions in care when new providers or care organizations become involved and new care decisions become necessary. Therefore, the interfaces of care and coordination among providers and institutions are critical to a successful process of cancer care. For example, studies of cancer have shown that whether people get screened accounts for a higher proportion of late-stage cancer than does the quality of the screening itself and that follow-up after an abnormal screen also is an important factor (14,15). Figure 2 shows the types of care and the triangles of communication that are established among cancer patients and their providers (16). The communication triangles pose challenges for patients and physicians faced with coordinating care because sharing a common understanding about what actions are required and what they mean is often necessary to successfully manage the interfaces and transitions. This challenge is made more complex because community service providers, patients’ families, and physicians’ staff also are critical to care and create additional triangles of communication that challenge coordination. Note that Figure 2 also highlights that the patient is often the central repository of information. The fragmented system of independent practitioners and offices in the United States challenge easy communication and coordination among providers, thereby placing patients in the potentially awkward role of coordinating their care by default (17,18). The triangles of communication across the cancer continuum. The thesis of this supplement is that coordination and communication across the interface of primary and subspecialty care and the transitions between care types are critical windows into opportunities to improve the quality of patient care. This is true in centrally organized health-care systems, such as Canada, where the many transitions in cancer care lend themselves to potential failures, and even more so in fragmented health-care system, such as the United States, where quality lapses are frequent. These interfaces are primarily human but also include connections between organizations and entities, such as primary care offices and subspecialty care offices, ambulatory care and hospital care, and primary and subspecialty care with other support services. Although we focus on providers in the discussion of interfaces, this is shorthand for the groups of people (receptionists, nurses, lab technicians, radiology technicians, physical therapists, nutritionists, etc.) in the primary and subspecialty arena who together the care at the the of patient information and improving the potential quality of patient care across these interfaces and each type of care are the for care in the 21st the interfaces among providers and between the of health-care delivery to consider the system in which care in health-care the and the of the people and care all the care process that is at the of a system of care that many have In this supplement, we an (Figure to consider the on the interfaces of care In this a of can between and patients The cancer care continuum occurs the of multiple of influence. has been about the with types of cancer and of screening for and treatment for and However, to the interfaces and between these types of care has been We hope that the articles in this supplement to this quality of care of the types of care, the steps and transitions care, and the interfaces that occur during care. Although the interfaces are emphasized in this supplement, the is that we must improve the steps types of care and the interfaces to improve care on both these them into an entire care process. also many opportunities to improve care without of reimbursement and have in reform cannot occur without changes in the process of care the of care and communication among providers is critical to improving care, it also is important to that the ultimate goal is to improve the of the people who care. For this supplement, we have six people who are of cancer treatment (Table 1). are not to be of what occurs on our is to and the supplement a to the human that are the care we are to and to the people those the to on the by the articles in this by the IOM Crossing the Quality a goal of improving care is how to patients back in the of what providers do (1). A of each case is in and their are in We have each of them to on articles in the supplement, and their can be in as to the interfaces of care to the interfaces of care This supplement on the interfaces of primary and subspecialty care and that the interface between primary and subspecialty care affects the quality of cancer care or health any systematic to at the primary care does the in which care is coordination and communication across the interfaces of research is the interfaces and their on patients and research need to be to the types of care, steps in care, and the interfaces between providers involved in the process of cancer In this we the continuum of cancer care, out that this supplement as a presentation a patient as well as physicians from Canada and the United States, and the thesis that the interfaces of providers in the cancer care an into how to address the quality chasm in health care. In of the supplement, the consider the as they address the phases the continuum of care and the interfaces between providers during and address through and and consider Diagnosis through and through and and This the care and so we patients and the to this and The articles in of the supplement consider the (Figure in which cancer care is and how that has multiple levels that can be to the transitions, steps, and interfaces in care. et a on of and in cancer screening and how they address steps and interfaces of cancer Zapka et al. consider how the multiple of the health-care system can interfaces during the follow-up after an abnormal These articles by et al. and Zapka et al. the that to address interfaces will need to consider the multiple levels of the care to achieve improvements. The by et al. cancer treatment and how one common the care has to the interfaces of care. et al. the of that can be to test changes in these whereas et al. in to the One potential is considered to be information et al. address whether that is a We close the supplement by the and an for that further work to and at the interfaces of care across the cancer continuum. This work by the Cancer Institute through and The articles in this supplement focus on the interfaces between primary care providers and the continuum of cancer care. However, to the patients who are at the of that care is the primary for this supplement because care of patients is the ultimate To ensure that the patient perspective we six cancer We were in about their through the cancer care continuum. we that they were not a we that their perspectives on the by the of articles here be to the One that that even this the through cancer care and that their into cancer care the of their We have their in this to this This that a perspective is when to improve the interfaces of care, for the interfaces may involve a and of primary care providers and in these is the to which these that they were the of their care and of and information about their care. In in on with severe and to a of a and a for in or the following at in to have following The of including a with with no of this in to from the to challenge to primary care physician of diagnosis and and to care in of she the of referral to a for diagnosis. a to work at a research institution with who have been an support and information to as the as and not primary care provider, is responsible for care and is who with about medical diagnosis and after to a new primary care This about cancer diagnosis and However, he does not have an role in as she established this care a every and with only at those does not need follow-up with an oncologist because of the of In and a in need for regular affected the of and decisions about and will do so for any In to a to help during and because of the risk to current are the different she has been given about risk of cancer and when they need to at a screening on a she an from the radiology of the to in for further breast she the and also she a from which back on when get this and who that she been by the of an on the on the to make an that she could have an in When the on she with the the and given an in the At this she a diagnosis of breast The step an with a surgeon by the a breast cancer The the surgeon on to get a more than she given when she the and were with organized presentation and by the fact that the surgeon with that she and treatment a do that we not need a note and to for in an organized on she case she is what this means and this is what we to reports that the surgeon not an oncologist but this is what be can about it and when oncologist of it have it for the The surgeon all of and and were and the to in an to to the oncologist after to the a a and of the of of the she which are in the by the change in one system as a of the one this as a possible and this to a at the who the and that she a physical who in not with or staff, so she to the at the hospital where she on communication among health-care providers, that not as primary care during the and treatment At different in the care continuum, she with or and One she about with cancer care the need to to many providers at each interface in the care continuum. For example, she multiple to the nurses, technicians, and staff at the also to multiple at the radiology because the different for to from the beginning of diagnosis. also has and she from that to medical has many of and is to have them because she needs to to When whether the of were that they were but and that she as the of care in of final and and as for care. is not whether any of the have into that role if she In to approach to care, that who of on primary care to manage cancer treatment and follow-up care as well as care and she and and a all once a to these so she This well for because she she is also has with an who has on that of other providers that one of medical practitioners have these particularly about to and is that on in the and even at diagnosis, people are not about the many to such as support cancer care and system Since diagnosis, she has become an for breast cancer and those with a cancer diagnosis, to help the system, a of and do a of research on do more research on a than they do with their medical In an physical one of the he when as a no regular primary care provider, on the the physical for from the he to a After a and the that he cancer as well as an which as after a biopsy. a from a at a who the diagnosis and after diagnosis, he to an after or of therapy, but the for In the of in to as well as a medical factor that make the to receive that case with other at a medical The from this become more about for a full in Although has the common from is visits the oncologist and once a and is as well and he after every that and their were good health insurance and good who to treatment, he not have a primary care as of of care of the good communication with and to become general of he that it not necessary to involve a primary care does have one however, and every of The one that and test were not well to all Therefore, he to medical that patients have a to their medical even they may need to be to obtain also that patients a support as he do their about the disease, and and the who may be involved in their care. a as an and medical care through the In after to primary care for a physical the a The an so to a The primary care not so to a who out to be A with the of an and the of a cancer with of that he with in therapy, and a from the an at the in with the organized care system at in and out of in The process a a and and he information into a At the end of the he a who the information from the to the surgeon through the reports of all and at were to primary care and The surgeon the cancer with and After the the that a and he on as for Sinc
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 128 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.