Lessons learned in the implementation of a cancer care network in Catalonia

2009 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 174-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josep M. Borras ◽  
Alan Boyd ◽  
Mercedes Martinez-Villacampa ◽  
Joan Brunet ◽  
Ramon Colomer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Care ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Care Network

The Comprehensive Cancer Care Network of Romagna: The Opportunities Generated by the OECI Accreditation Program

2015 ◽  
Vol 101 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. S55-S59
Author(s):  
Valentina Ancarani ◽  
Marna Bernabini ◽  
Chiara Zani ◽  
Mattia Altini ◽  
Dino Amadori
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Care ◽  
Care Network ◽  
Accreditation Program

Creation of a virtual cancer care network for remote oncology treatment.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6546-6546 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vida Almario Passero ◽  
Andrew Dede Liman ◽  
Kaneen Allen ◽  
Lucy Speerhas ◽  
Jocelyn Lai Tan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Anticancer Therapy ◽  
Care Network ◽  
Commute Time ◽  
Central Pennsylvania ◽  
Primary Relationships ◽  
Oncology Treatment ◽  
Supportive Oncology ◽  
Grade 3

6546 Background: The VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System (VAPHS) Virtual Cancer Care Network was launched in January 2018 after we had established an electronic consult service where 555 hematology electronic consults were completed at VAPHS in FY17. The clinical video telehealth (CVT) clinic allows veterans from central Pennsylvania to receive their anticancer therapy at the VA in Altoona, Pennsylvania where the oncology pharmacy, nursing, telehealth, and supportive oncology staff are on site. Patients follow regularly and remotely during treatment via CVT visits with their oncologist located 93 miles away at the VA in Pittsburgh. Methods: A chemotherapy pharmacy and nursing infusion clinic were created at the VA in Altoona. CVT visits started in January 2018. Data including treatment, adverse events defined through CTCAE v5.0, gender, age, zip code, and other details were examined retrospectively. Results: 279 CVT visits for 89 patients were completed January 2018 through Sept 2018. 87 were male, 2 were female. Average age was 70 (range 45-90). Most common primary disease sites were prostate (19.1%), colorectal (13.4%), and lung (9%). 61.8% of patients were on treatment. Non-treatment visits were for surveillance and survivorship. Treatment administered included platinum doublets, fluorouracil doublets, immunotherapy, and oral anticancer therapy. 5.4% of patients had Grade 3-4 events due to febrile neutropenia, increased liver enzymes, and hemolytic anemia. 41.7% had grade 1-2 events due to peripheral neuropathy, neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, and infusion-related reactions. Using an average commuting speed of 60 mph and a travel cost of $ 0.56 per mile, the total commute distance averted was 49,579 miles. Mean distance averted per patient was 557 miles. Total commute time saved for veterans was 826 hours. Total mileage costs saved for veterans was $27,764. Conclusions: The Virtual Cancer Care Network reduced the travel time and costs for veterans who previously would have travelled from central Pennsylvania to VAPHS for their oncology treatment. Adverse events were tolerable and managed by the VA in Altoona. Integration of CVT secures safe access to cancer care and maintains patients’ primary relationships with their oncologists.

Improving quality of cancer care: Lessons learned from the journey towards QOPI Certification.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 263-263
Author(s):  
Nafisa Abdelhafiez ◽  
Mona Mohamed Alshami ◽  
Mohammad Omar Al-Kaiyat ◽  
Tabrez Pasha ◽  
Nashmia Mutairi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Care ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Noticeable Improvement ◽  
Check System ◽  
American Society ◽  
Oncology Practice ◽  
Super Users

263 Background: To assess the quality of cancer care provided at our institution, we participated in Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) of American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). However, our initial two rounds revealed lower score than required for QOPI Certification. Our goal was to implement interventions based on lessons learned from the initial rounds. Methods: Prior to the third round and using plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles, we identified and worked on three processes: clarifying and enhancing the function of the team, optimizing communication and improving documentation. We created QOPI multi-disciplinary team to include more members from different disciplines. We enhanced the knowledge of the team regarding our electronic health records system (EHRS) by conducting educational sessions and nominating super users who are very competent in EHRS and peer-to-peer support was created. Members were entering data in group sessions with the help of super users. We established double check system for records to be reviewed by two team members before submission. communication was assured among team members through weekly in person meetings and with ASCO QOPI team via virtual meetings to address queries. Documentation was improved by creating newer templates that conform with QOPI requirements including chemotherapy treatment plan, end of treatment summary and documentation of treatment consent. Results: The implementation of these interventions over three PDSA cycles made noticeable improvement in the previously unmet standards resulting in a score that exceeded the benchmark in fall of 2017 (score of 93%). This made our practice eligible for on-site certification visit by ASCO QOPI surveyors on May 2018 to assess practice compliance with QOPI standards. After addressing the unmet standards from the visit, our center became the first QOPI Certified Center in the Middle East and Asia in October/2018. Conclusions: Our journey towards QOPI Certification highlights the importance of fundamental principles in health care: coordinated multidisciplinary team, effective communication and proper documentation that captures essential and critical items reflecting better quality of care.

Designing comprehensive patient and family centered oncology care to achieve value based quality outcomes: Lessons learned from the field in creating sustainable change.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18225-e18225
Author(s):  
Tamira Harris ◽  
Lalan S. Wilfong
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Care ◽  
Gap Analysis ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Strong Relationship ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Care Team ◽  
Need To Evaluate ◽  
Oncology Care ◽  
Value Based Care ◽  
Family Centered

e18225 Background: Of all clinical specialties cancer care is often thought of as one of the most patient and family centered due to the nature of the disease and course of treatment. Traditionally a strong relationship is held among the physicians, office practice staff and patients and family. Cancer care requires multidisciplinary collaboration and alignment for the optimized patient experience. Comparatively speaking this has been the case. The office based oncology care team has worked side by side to move the patient through the system during various treatments and settings. Most often the relationships and bonds that are formed are long lasting as cancer is a life changing experience. Opportunities for change however do exist and are needed in today’s increasingly complex healthcare environment. As demographics shift, and treatment methodologies continue to be discovered costs have escalated giving rise to the need to evaluate different care delivery models such as value based care. The Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Innovation Center (CMMI) Oncology Care Model (OCM) initiative has addressed this in their 5 year OCM pilot. Methods: Using qualitative and six sigma lean techniques practices redesigned patient throughput and experience based on data from gap analysis assessments, observation and collaboration. Results: The session will highlight lessons learned from the practice setting in initiating the changes required to meet CMS objectives and change the face of oncology care. Learn how practices designed patient navigation, created care team huddles, designed technology that facilities decision making, identified new models and partnerships for care, and standardized approaches across practice sites among other successes. Conclusions: This interactive session will explore what worked well, what physicians would change, and next steps planned.

Development of a virtual cancer care network for distance oncology treatment.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 270-270
Author(s):  
Vida Almario Passero ◽  
Andrew D. Liman ◽  
Hema Rai ◽  
Laurie Harrold ◽  
John Hotchkiss ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Care ◽  
Anticancer Therapy ◽  
Clinic Visit ◽  
Nurse Specialist ◽  
Missed Opportunities ◽  
Care Network ◽  
Palliative Intent ◽  
Central Pennsylvania ◽  
Common Diagnosis ◽  
Oncology Treatment

270 Background: The VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System (VAPHS) Virtual Cancer Care Network was launched in January 2018 as the next step after we had established an electronic consult service where 555 hematology electronic consults were completed at VAPHS in FY17. The clinical video telehealth (CVT) clinic allows veterans from central Pennsylvania to receive their anticancer therapy at the VA in Altoona, Pennsylvania where the oncology pharmacy, nursing, telehealth, and supportive oncology staff are on site, while the patients continue to follow regularly during treatment via CVT visits with their oncologist located 93 miles away at the VA in Pittsburgh. Methods: A chemotherapy pharmacy and nursing infusion clinic were created at the VA in Altoona. CVT visits started in January 2018. Data including zip code and clinic visit details were examined through descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 89 CVT visits for 27 patients were completed from January 2018 to May 2018. All patient visits were follow-ups while patients were receiving active treatment. 16 patients received intravenous treatments, and 11 received oral anticancer therapy. 100% of the patients were male. Median age was 73 (range 56-89). The most common diagnosis was prostate cancer (26%). The majority of the patients were receiving therapy for palliative intent. 100% of patients chose VA Altoona rather than VAPHS as their treatment clinic location. Five oncology physicians and one oncology clinical nurse specialist completed the clinical video telehealth visits from VAPHS. Total commuting distance averted was 14,828 miles. With an average commuting speed of 60 mph and a travel cost per mile of 0.5 dollars, the total commute time saved for veterans was 247 hours, and the total mileage costs saved was $7414. Appointment compliance was 100%, and there were no missed opportunities. Conclusions: Implementing the Virtual Cancer Care Network has decreased the travel time and costs for veterans who previously would have travelled from central Pennsylvania to VAPHS for their oncology treatment. The integration of CVT technology has improved patient access to oncology care and maintains the patients’ primary relationships with their oncologists.

The cancer care network clinical trials program: Rising from the camp fire ashes.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 168-168
Author(s):  
Ofilio Ramon Vigil ◽  
Dana Ann Little ◽  
Kristin J. Mensonides ◽  
Richard J. Bold
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Rural Communities ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Care Network ◽  
Research Oversight ◽  
The City

168 Background: The UC Davis Health Cancer Care Network (CCN) in Sacramento improves quality through partnerships with community cancer centers and the UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center (UCDCCC). The UCDCCC, as an NCI Lead Academic Participating Site (LAPS) grant recipient, lists Adventist Health Rideout Cancer Center (RCC) in Marysville (42 miles north of Sacramento) as a component. The Adventist Health Feather River Cancer Center (FRCC) and the town of Paradise were devastated by the 2018 Camp Fire, forcing FRCC’s relocation to the city of Chico (49 miles north of Marysville). FRCC was forced to disband its local IRB and unable to continue clinical trials research operations during the aftermath of this natural disaster. The CCN established an affiliation with the FRCC in April 2019. Future plans include establishing an IRB agreement and adding FRCC as a LAPS component. The CCN identified strategies to facilitate the participation of FRCC patients in clinical trials. Methods: The CCN identified 13 NCTN clinical trials with 34 enrolled patients that were in need of appropriate research oversight. Four of these trials were previously never activated at the UCDCCC or its affiliates. CCN staff engaged leaders at the various institutions involved: Quality Assurance (QA) Managers at each NCTN research base, the CIRB, the local IRB, the CTSU, and other leaders within UC Davis and Adventist Health. Results: Stakeholders acknowledged the unusual and urgent nature of our requests and questions, while contributing to the development of a plan allowing patients to continue clinical trial participation. QA managers approved a plan transferring patients to the RCC, allowing research staff to collect and submit data while patients continue receiving care closer to home. Together we developed a notification letter to inform patients of this plan. Conclusions: The relocation of facilities and patients brought rare challenges while conducting clinical research in rural communities. We learned that the cooperation and flexibility of all parties involved was crucial in supporting the continued care for FRCC's clinical trial patients and research contributions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document