Background There is a need for guidelines on patient navigation activities to promote both the quality of patient navigation and the standards of reimbursement for these services because a lack of reimbursement is a major barrier to the implementation, maintenance, and sustainability of these programs. Methods A broad community‐based participatory research process was used to identify the needs of patients for navigation. A panel of stakeholders of clinical providers was convened to identify specific activities for navigators to address the needs of patients and providers with the explicit goal of reducing delays in the initiation of cancer treatment and improving adherence to the care plan. Results Specific activities were identified that could be generalized to all patient navigation programs for care during active cancer management to address the needs of vulnerable communities. Conclusions Oncology programs that seek to implement lay patient navigation may benefit from the adoption of these activities for quality monitoring. Such activities are necessary as we consider reimbursement strategies for navigators without clinical training or licensure.

No abstract

Lemon SC. Assessment of patient navigation programs for breast cancer patients across the city of Boston.

and the Translating Research Into Practice (TRIP) Consortium BACKGROUND: Implementing city-wide patient navigation processes that support patients across the continuum of cancer care is impeded by a lack of standardized tools to integrate workflows and reduce gaps in care. The authors present an actionable workflow process mapping protocol for navigation process planning and improvement based on methods developed for the Translating Research Into Practice study. METHODS: Key stakeholders at each study site were identified through existing community partnerships, and data on each site's navigation processes were collected using mixed methods through a series of team meetings. The authors used Health Quality Ontario's Quality Improvement Guide, service design principles, and key stakeholder input to map the collected data onto a template structured according to the case-management model. RESULTS: Data collection and process mapping exercises resulted in a 10-step protocol that includes: 1) workflow mapping procedures to guide data collection on the series of activities performed by health care personnel that comprise a patient's navigation experience, 2) a site survey to assess program characteristics, 3) a semistructured interview guide to assess care coordination workflows, 4) a site-level swim lane workflow process mapping template, and 5) a regional high-level process mapping template to aggregate data from multiple site-level process maps. CONCLUSIONS: This iterative, participatory approach to data collection and process mapping can be used by improvement teams to streamline care coordination, ultimately improving the design and delivery of an evidence-based navigation model that spans multiple treatment modalities and multiple health systems in a metropolitan area. This protocol is presented as an actionable toolkit so the work may be replicated to support other qualityimprovement initiatives and efforts to design truly patient-centered breast cancer treatment experiences.