Browsing by Author "Weiner, George J."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Essential Components of Cancer Education
    (American Association for Cancer Research, 2015-12-15) Welch, Danny R.; Antalis, Toni M.; Burnstein, Kerry; Vona-Davis, Linda; Jensen, Roy A.; Nakshatri, Harikrishna; Riegel, Anna; Spitz, Douglas R.; Watson, Dennis K.; Weiner, George J.; Department of Surgery, IU School of Medicine
    Modern cancer therapy/care involves the integration of basic, clinical, and population-based research professionals using state-of-the-art science to achieve the best possible patient outcomes. A well-integrated team of basic, clinical, and population science professionals and educators working with a fully engaged group of creative junior investigators and trainees provides a structure to achieve these common goals. To this end, the structure provided by cancer-focused educational programs can create the integrated culture of academic medicine needed to reduce the burden of cancer on society. This summary outlines fundamental principles and potential best practice strategies for the development of integrated educational programs directed at achieving a work force of professionals that broadly appreciate the principals of academic medicine spanning the breadth of knowledge necessary to advance the goal of improving the current practice of cancer care medicine.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Status of Cancer Care at Network Sites of the Nation's Academic Cancer Centers
    (National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 2021-03-11) Gerson, Stanton L.; Shaw, Kate; Harrison, Louis B.; Holcombe, Randall F.; Hutchins, Laura; Lee, Carrie B.; Loehrer, Patrick J., Sr.; Mulkerin, Daniel; Purcell, W. Thomas; Teston, Lois; Weiner, Louis M.; Weiner, George J.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background: Cancer care coordination across major academic medical centers and their networks is evolving rapidly, but the spectrum of organizational efforts has not been described. We conducted a mixed-methods survey of leading cancer centers and their networks to document care coordination and identify opportunities to improve geographically dispersed care. Methods: A mixed-methods survey was sent to 91 cancer centers in the United States and Canada. We analyzed the number and locations of network sites; access to electronic medical records (EMRs); clinical research support and participation at networks; use of patient navigators, care paths, and quality measures; and physician workforce. Responses were collected via Qualtrics software between September 2017 and December 2018. Results: Of the 69 responding cancer centers, 74% were NCI-designated. Eighty-seven percent of respondents were part of a matrix health system, and 13% were freestanding. Fifty-six reported having network sites. Forty-three respondents use navigators for disease-specific populations, and 24 use them for all patients. Thirty-five respondents use ≥1 types of care path. Fifty-seven percent of networks had complete, integrated access to their main center's EMRs. Thirty-nine respondents said the main center provides funding for clinical research at networks, with 22 reporting the main center provides all funding. Thirty-five said the main center provided pharmacy support at the networks, with 15 indicating the main center provides 100% pharmacy support. Certification program participation varied extensively across networks. Conclusions: The data show academic cancer centers have extensive involvement in network cancer care, often extending into rural communities. Coordinating care through improved clinical trial access and greater use of patient navigation, care paths, coordinated EMRs, and quality measures is likely to improve patient outcomes. Although it is premature to draw firm conclusions, the survey results are appropriate for mapping next steps and data queries.