scholarly journals Building Quality from the Ground Up in a Cancer Center

2021 ◽  
pp. 135-143
Author(s):  
Arslan Babar ◽  
Alberto J. Montero
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Care ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Institute Of Medicine ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Quality Cancer Care ◽  
Process And Outcome ◽  
Donabedian Model ◽  
Quality In Healthcare ◽  
Patient Centric

AbstractThe Institute of Medicine defines quality in healthcare as the degree to which health services for individuals and populations increase the likelihood of desired health outcomes and are consistent with current professional knowledge. This concept is highly relevant for cancer care that involves patients with complex diseases in the setting of rapidly evolving treatment landscape that requires provision of appropriate services in a patient-centric and technically competent manner. This chapter uses the Donabedian model to review the structural, process, and outcome-based quality domains that lay the foundation for a robust system to measure, monitor, and improve quality of care at cancer centers. The infrastructure and personnel, systems, and culture needed for ensuring provision of high-quality cancer care are reviewed.

Practice-Changing Strategies to Deliver Affordable, High-Quality Cancer Care: Summary of an Institute of Medicine Workshop

2013 ◽  
Vol 9 (6S) ◽  
pp. 54s-59s ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin P. Balogh ◽  
Peter B. Bach ◽  
Peter D. Eisenberg ◽  
Patricia A. Ganz ◽  
Robert J. Green ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Care ◽  
21St Century ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Institute Of Medicine ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Quality Cancer Care

The authors summarize presentations and discussion from the Delivering Affordable Cancer Care in the 21st Century workshop and focus on proposed strategies to improve the affordability of cancer care while maintaining or improving the quality of care.

Proposed Agenda for the Measurement of Quality-of-Care Outcomes in Oncology Practice

1999 ◽  
Vol 17 (8) ◽  
pp. 2614-2614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeanne S. Mandelblatt ◽  
Patricia A. Ganz ◽  
Katherine L. Kahn
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
The United States ◽  
Leadership Role ◽  
Institute Of Medicine ◽  
Oncology Practice ◽  
The Impact

ABSTRACT: Cancer is an important disease, and health care services have the potential to improve the quality and quantity of life for cancer patients. The delivery of these services also has recently been well codified. Given this framework, cancer care presents a unique opportunity for clinicians to develop and test outcome measures across diverse practice settings. Recently, the Institute of Medicine released a report reviewing the quality of cancer care in the United States and called for further development and monitoring of quality indicators. Thus, as we move into the 21st century, professional and regulatory agencies will be seeking to expand process measures and develop and validate outcomes-oriented measures for cancer and other diseases. For such measures to be clinically relevant and feasible, it is key that the oncology community take an active leadership role in this process. To set the stage for such activities, this article first reviews broad methodologic concerns involved in selecting measures of the quality of care, using breast cancer to exemplify key issues. We then use the case of breast cancer to review the different phases of cancer care and provide examples of phase-specific measures that, after careful operationalization, testing, and validation, could be used as the basis of an agenda for measuring the quality of breast cancer care in oncology practice. The diffusion of process and outcome measures into practice; the practicality, reliability, and validity of these measures; and the impact that these indicators have on practice patterns and the health of populations will be key to evaluating the success of such quality-of-care paradigms. Ultimately, improved quality of care should translate into morbidity and mortality reductions.

scholarly journals Delivering High-Quality and Affordable Care Throughout the Cancer Care Continuum

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (32) ◽  
pp. 4151-4157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ya-Chen Tina Shih ◽  
Patricia A. Ganz ◽  
Denise Aberle ◽  
Amy Abernethy ◽  
Justin Bekelman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Care ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Financial Burden ◽  
The United States ◽  
Institute Of Medicine ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Care Continuum ◽  
Quality Cancer Care ◽  
Cancer Care Continuum

The national cost of cancer care is projected to reach $173 billion by 2020, increasing from $125 billion in 2010. This steep upward cost trajectory has placed enormous an financial burden on patients, their families, and society as a whole and raised major concern about the ability of the health care system to provide and sustain high-quality cancer care. To better understand the cost drivers of cancer care and explore approaches that will mitigate the problem, the National Cancer Policy Forum of the Institute of Medicine held a workshop entitled “Delivering Affordable Cancer Care in the 21st Century” in October 2012. Workshop participants included bioethicists, health economists, primary care physicians, and medical, surgical, and radiation oncologists, from both academic and community settings. All speakers expressed a sense of urgency about the affordability of cancer care resulting from the future demographic trend as well as the high cost of emerging cancer therapies and rapid diffusion of new technologies in the absence to evidence indicating improved outcomes for patients. This article is our summary of presentations at the workshop that highlighted the overuse and underuse of screening, treatments, and technologies throughout the cancer care continuum in oncology practice in the United States.

Assessing the quality of breast cancer care in cancer center hospitals in Japan.

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16566-e16566 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Higashi ◽  
F. Nakamura ◽  
H. Mukai ◽  
T. Sobue ◽  
E. Mekata ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Breast Cancer Care

Leveraging the strengths of an academic health system to improve community cancer care.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 218-218
Author(s):  
Kay M. Harse ◽  
Terri P. Wolf
Keyword(s):  
Health System ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Local Community ◽  
Care Quality ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Local Market ◽  
Quality Model ◽  
Academic Health ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
National Quality

218 Background: To improve community cancer care quality, UC Davis Health System formed the UC Davis Cancer Care Network (CCN) to partner with select cancer centers in California to offer leading-edge care close to home. Hospital-based community cancer centers become affiliates of the UC Davis CCN through an evaluation process led by UC Davis. By synergizing the strengths of an academic health system and community-based oncology care, the network formalizes the commitment to collaboration with community providers. Methods: This quality model relies on a central university-based team interacting with affiliate sites to support them in their local missions. Affiliates progress through three phases of development of their cancer program. Each phase adds layers of quality to the organization. CCN staff members coordinate the phases: 1) Review and Develop Operations—site specific structures needed to be a comprehensive community cancer center; 2) Make Connections—within the network and the local community; 3) Become Self-Directed—identifying own needs and direction. The partnership attributes include: joint marketing, system synergies, certification assistance, coordinated service line development, dedicated personnel resources, on-site educational opportunities, and quality oversight. Results: Performance measurement includes: local market share, ACOS accreditation, adherence to national quality and patient satisfaction standards, assessment of community health needs and benefits, and enhancement of local capabilities (inpatient oncology unit, radiation, pathology, radiology, and surgical oncology services). Conclusions: This model demonstrates the benefit of partnering the strengths of an academic health system and community cancer programs to provide quality care.

Sustaining quality cancer care in the NCI Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP).

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6536-6536
Author(s):  
Kathleen M. Castro ◽  
Pamela Spain ◽  
Stephanie Teixeira-Poit ◽  
Irene Prabhu Das ◽  
Brenda A. Adjei ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Care ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Quality Cancer Care

Do rural cancer patients receive lower quality cancer care? Assessing the impact of rurality on oncology practice performance measures.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 166-166
Author(s):  
Catherine R. Fedorenko ◽  
Laura Elizabeth Panattoni ◽  
Qin Sun ◽  
Li Li ◽  
Karma L. Kreizenbeck ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Socioeconomic Status ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Performance Measure ◽  
Area Deprivation ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Quality Cancer Care ◽  
Practice Performance ◽  
The Impact

166 Background: Rural residents are diagnosed at later stages of cancer compared to urban residents, have poorer survival, and face distinct barriers to receiving quality cancer care. ASCO has developed policy initiatives to address rural cancer care; however, little is known about quality of cancer care among patients residing in rural areas. This study examined the impact of rurality on performance metrics, controlling for socioeconomic status and insurance type. Methods: We linked Washington state cancer registry records from 2015-2017 with claims records for two large commercial insurers, Medicare, and Medicaid. Using claims from this database, we generated eight nationally recognized quality measures. Rurality was measured by the Rural-Urban Commuting Area Codes (RUCAs) categorized into 4 levels (Metro, Metro with commute, Micropolitan, Small Town/Rural). Process and outcome measures were adjusted for age, sex, race, comorbidity score, stage, cancer type, marital status, the Area Deprivation Index, and treatment factors where appropriate. Results were stratified by payer type. Results: The table below lists the effect of a patient’s rurality on the quality metric where significant (p<0.05). Where rurality did not impact the performance measure, results are left blank. Conclusions: After controlling for socioeconomic status and payer type, quality of cancer care for rural cancer patients was not consistently poorer compared to urban patients. These results suggest that lower survival among rural patients may be due to factors beyond quality of care.[Table: see text]

Advanced cancer patients' (CP) attitudes and perceptions regarding reasons for outpatient supportive care (SC) referral at a comprehensive cancer center: A randomized controlled study.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e24135-e24135
Author(s):  
Angelique Wong ◽  
Frank V. Fossella ◽  
George R. Simon ◽  
Rama Maddi ◽  
Zhanni Lu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Supportive Care ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Attitudes And Perceptions ◽  
Outpatient Supportive Care

e24135 Background: Current ASCO guidelines propose early access to SC in all CP to improve quality of care, quality of life, and symptoms. Very few studies have evaluated patients’ perceived criteria for referral to outpatient SC and perceptions of patients who are referred early in their disease trajectory. Methods: In this study we evaluated CP attitudes and perceptions regarding the role of and access to outpatient Supportive Care clinic (SCC) at a comprehensive cancer center. CP with life expectancy of greater than 6 months (as determined by the oncologist) and who are newly registered at MD Anderson Cancer Center were randomized to either obtain an educational brochure that explained the role of the SCC or no brochure. Both groups then completed a survey regarding the role and access to of outpatient SCC. After completion of the survey, patients were asked if they would like to be seen by the SC team. If so, they were scheduled by their oncologist for a SC consult. Results: 288 patients were evaluable: median age was 63, 43% were female, 84% were Caucasian, and the most common cancer type was lung cancer (39%). Median survival was 15 months. Patients who received a brochure reported more understanding of the role of SC vs those who did not receive a brochure (63% vs 37%, p = 0.04). Both groups felt that SC could help to address physical (47% vs 54%) and psychosocial (50% vs 50%) symptoms. Both groups felt SC could help to address questions regarding prognosis (50% vs 50%) and future care (53% vs 47%). Both groups did not feel that time (50% vs 50%) nor financial concerns (49% vs 51%) would be barriers to access SC. Both groups did not feel that receiving SC would impede their cancer care (60% vs 40%) nor change their oncologists’ perspective of them (25% vs 75%). Both groups felt they could receive SC and cancer care simultaneously (50% vs 50%). Approximately half of the patients in both groups perceived it was not too early for a referral to SC. There were no statistical differences in these groups for these findings. Conclusions: Patients who received a brochure had a better understanding of the role of SC. A very significant proportion in both groups had limited awareness of the value of SC. Oncologist driven referral and education of SC may facilitate better understanding of the value of SC. Further studies are needed.

scholarly journals Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care: Changes in Psychosocial Quality of Care Indicators Over a 3-Year Interval

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. e103-e109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul B. Jacobsen ◽  
Ji-Hyun Lee ◽  
William Fulp ◽  
Erin M. Siegel ◽  
David Shibata ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Psychosocial Care ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Audit And Feedback ◽  
Quality Cancer Care

Findings suggest that more intensive efforts than audit and feedback will be required to improve the quality of psychosocial care, and that greater recognition of problems with emotional well-being may tax the ability of practices to link patients with appropriate services.

scholarly journals Improving Cancer Outcomes Through International Collaboration in Developing Countries: King Hussein Cancer Center As a Unique Experience

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement 2) ◽  
pp. 161s-161s
Author(s):  
J. Khader
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
International Collaboration ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Research Work ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Regional Collaboration ◽  
Tumor Boards

Background and context: The need for international and regional collaboration in cancer care has grown stronger as we have made progress in both cancer treatment and screening. We sought to share our unique and successful experience at King Hussein Cancer Center (KHCC) in Jordan and to identify those efforts already underway, which facilitate such collaboration and lead to raise up the cancer care in Jordan to highest levels. Aim: To strengthen cancer care in Jordan. Strategy/Tactics: Over 15 years, KHCC succeeded in binding with well reputed international cancer centers, like MD Anderson Cancer Center, Princess Margret Hospital, St June Cancer Center, Sick Hospital Cancer Center and Moffit Cancer Center, through twinning programs and collaborative agreements to improve capacity building, holding joint scientific activities like joint telemedicine tumor boards, symposia, workshops, and clinical research. Outcomes: Through such international collaboration, KHCC could reach a highest level of cancer care and considered as a hub in the region for cancer treatment, training and research. This great achievement was not possible without this effective collaboration with these international cancer centers. Many clinical programs have been initiated at KHCC because of this collaboration, which lead to joint clinical research work and publication. What was learned: International collaboration between cancer centers in developing countries and developed countries is very beneficial and can reduce the gap in cancer care. The successful experience of KHCC in this regard should admire cancer centers in developing countries to consider it and adopt it.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document