Cancer center clinic and clinical research team perceptions of identity and interactions.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18215-e18215
Author(s):  
David E. Gerber ◽  
Torsten Reimer ◽  
Sandra Garcia ◽  
Mary Gill ◽  
Tobi Duncan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Information Sharing ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
The Other ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Research Staff ◽  
Clinic Staff

e18215 Background: As evidenced by the NCI-ASCO Teams in Cancer Care Delivery initiative, there is growing interest in applying an emerging science of teams to oncology clinical care. Treatment of patients on cancer clinical trials requires coordination and cooperation among research and clinic teams. However, little empirical research has examined issues of goal alignment, diffusion of responsibility, and perceived rivalries in this setting. Methods: We developed a survey incorporating modified components of the Adapted Team Climate Inventory, the Measure of Team Identification, and the Measure of In-group Bias. Surveys were administered to research staff and clinic staff. Survey responses were analyzed using t tests and ANOVAs. Results: Responses were received from 104 staff (54 clinic, 50 research). Median duration of professional experience was 8.3 years, and median time in current position was 2.0 years. Research staff identified more strongly with their own group ( P< 0.01) but less strongly with the Cancer Center ( P= 0.02) compared to clinic staff. Both clinic and research staff viewed their own group’s goals as clearer than those of the other group ( P< 0.01). Both clinic staff and research staff felt that members of their groups shared information among themselves more than the other group ( P< 0.01). Research staff felt information sharing occurred to a greater extent in both groups than did clinic staff ( P< 0.01). Similar results were noted regarding information sharing with the other group ( Ps< 0.01). Staff indicated that members of their own groups interacted more often with each other than did members of the other group ( P< 0.01), with research staff perceiving higher interaction rates in both teams than clinic staff ( P< 0.01). Research staff perceived daily outcomes to be more important than did clinic staff ( P =0.05), in particular research-related outcomes ( P =0.07). Conclusions: Clinical research staff and clinic staff identify more strongly with their own groups and feel that their own group’s goals are clearer than those of the other group. Further study of interactions, perceptions, and attitudes between research staff and clinic staff is essential to provision of quality care to patients on cancer clinical trials.

scholarly journals Definition and Coordination of Roles and Responsibilities Among Cancer Center Clinic and Research Personnel

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. e64-e74
Author(s):  
Simon J. Craddock Lee ◽  
Torsten Reimer ◽  
Sandra Garcia ◽  
Erin L. Williams ◽  
Mary West ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Physician Attitudes ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Research Staff ◽  
Research Personnel ◽  
Delivery Of Care ◽  
Roles And Responsibilities ◽  
Clinic Staff ◽  
Staff Members

PURPOSE: Effective enrollment and treatment of patients in cancer clinical trials require definition and coordination of roles and responsibilities among clinic and research personnel. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a survey that incorporated modified components of the Survey of Physician Attitudes Regarding the Care of Cancer Survivors. Surveys were administered to clinic nursing staff and research personnel at a National Cancer Institute–designated comprehensive cancer center. Results were analyzed using χ2-tests, t tests, and analyses of variance. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 105 staff members (n = 50 research staff, n = 55 clinic staff; 61% response rate). Research staff were more likely to feel that they had the skills to answer questions, convey information, and provide education for patients on trials (all P < .05). Both clinic and research staff reported receipt of communication about responsibilities in fewer than 30% of cases, although research staff reported provision of such information in more than 60% of cases. Among 20 tasks related to care of patients in trials, no single preferred model of responsibility assignment was selected by the majority of clinic staff for nine tasks (45%) or by research staff for three tasks (15%). Uncertainty about which team coordinates care was reported by three times as many clinic staff as research staff ( P = .01). There was also substantial variation in the preferred model for delivery of care to patients in trials ( P < .05). CONCLUSION: Knowledge, attitudes, and perception of care and responsibilities for patients on clinical trials differ between and among clinic and research personnel. Additional research about how these findings affect efficiency and quality of care on clinical trials is needed.

Perceived Institutional Barriers Among Clinical and Research Professionals: Minority Participation in Oncology Clinical Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. e666-e675 ◽  
Author(s):  
Soumya J. Niranjan ◽  
Jennifer A. Wenzel ◽  
Michelle Y. Martin ◽  
Mona N. Fouad ◽  
Selwyn M. Vickers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Community Outreach ◽  
Institutional Factors ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Minority Recruitment ◽  
Institutional Barriers ◽  
Medical Centers ◽  
Academic Medical

PURPOSE: In general, participation rates in cancer clinical trials are very low. However, participation rates are especially low among the socially disadvantaged and racial and ethnic minority groups. These groups have been historically under-represented in cancer clinical trials. Although many patient-related barriers have been studied, institutional factors that are essential for building clinical research infrastructure around the clinical trial enterprise in academic medical centers have been underexplored. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed perspectives of cancer center professional stakeholders on the institutional factors that can potentially influence racial and ethnic minority recruitment for cancer clinical trials. Ninety-one qualitative interviews were conducted at five US cancer centers among four stakeholder groups: cancer center leaders, principal investigators, referring clinicians, and research staff. Qualitative analyses examined response data focused on institutional factors related to minority recruitment for cancer clinical trials. RESULTS: Four prominent themes emerged regarding institutional barriers among clinical and research professionals. (1) There are no existing programs currently being used to recruit or retain minorities to clinical trials. (2) Institutional efforts are needed to increase trial participation and are not specific to potential minority participants. (3) Access to cancer clinical trials and navigation within an Academic Medical Center need to be simplified to better facilitate recruitment of minority patients. (4) Community outreach by cancer centers will increase clinical research awareness in the community. CONCLUSION: Our research highlights the need to address institutional barriers to improve the success of minority recruitment. To increase participation among minority populations, medical centers must address mutable institutional barriers such as setting specific minority recruitment goals for cancer clinical trials, ensuring that cancer clinical trials are accessible, especially to minority patients, and supporting sustained community outreach programs to increase clinical research awareness.

Increasing Clinical Trials Accrual at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 1266-1266
Author(s):  
Bayard L. Powell ◽  
Debbie Olson ◽  
Robert M. Morrell ◽  
Terry L. Hales ◽  
Kevin P High ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Point System ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Treatment Trials ◽  
Academic Year ◽  
Year 2013

Abstract Background: During the academic year 2013 (July 2012-June 2013) our accrual to cancer clinical trials, a critical measure of success for a Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC), was lower than prior years and below the desired level for CCC core grant renewal. Academic physicians were faced with increasing pressures to meet clinical demands, often at the expense of academic productivity, including clinical research. Methods: Our Dean and clinical leadership committed to support our efforts to increase accrual to clinical trials by providing salary support for our Section on Hematology and Oncology for specific milestones of 5%, 10%, and 15% increases in accrual to all clinical trials and in accrual to treatment (NCI definition) trials. The goal of the faculty was to increase accrual by > 15% to all trials and to treatment trials to maximize the “pool”. To determine how to divide the pool among investigators we developed a point system recognizing clinical investigators for roles as a) PI for trials (with additional points for all accrual to their trials) and b) for entering patients on clinical trials. The point system for both roles (PI and entering patients) was weighted relative to the value of the trial to the CCC, e.g. investigator initiated > cooperative group > industry initiated, and treatment trials >> non-treatment trials. In addition, we awarded points for publications (first and senior author > co-author) and presentations (oral > poster; major national meeting > other meetings). Results: During academic year 2014 (July 2013-June 2014) accrual to all cancer clinical trials increased by 140% (276 to 663) and accrual to treatment trials increased 40% (114 to 160). These increases occurred in both hematologic malignancies (95% all; 16% treatment) where we had a strong track record for accruals, and in solid tumors (200% all; 76% treatment) where our prior record was not as strong. Discussion: Accrual to clinical trials, both treatment and non-treatment improved dramatically. Interpretation of cause and effect is complex. The baseline year (2013) included implementation of a new EMR and the recent year (2014) included recruitment of additional faculty. However, 2014 was complicated by implementation of a new practice plan heavily weighted toward individual RVU production, and a decrease in available co-operative group trials to historically low levels. However, we can conclude that attention to this critical role of clinical investigators is important and can influence behavior. We cannot determine whether financial incentives are needed or whether the funding is one of several potential methods of recognition of the importance of clinical trials. It is possible that the commitment to provide financial support for clinical research demonstrated to clinical investigators that the leadership valued clinical trials activity and this recognition was more important than the actual funds. Future efforts will also need to find ways to recognize/reward clinical trials productivity of groups of investigators for their multidisciplinary contributions to the care of patients on clinical trials, without generating internal competition within the groups. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

scholarly journals Cancer Center Clinic and Research Team Perceptions of Identity and Interactions

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (12) ◽  
pp. e1021-e1029 ◽  
Author(s):  
Torsten Reimer ◽  
Simon J. Craddock Lee ◽  
Sandra Garcia ◽  
Mary Gill ◽  
Tobi Duncan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Group Dynamics ◽  
The Other ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Research Staff ◽  
Research Teams ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Clinic Staff ◽  
Impact Function ◽  
Shared Information

Purpose: Conduct of cancer clinical trials requires coordination and cooperation among research and clinic teams. Diffusion of and confusion about responsibility may occur if team members’ perceptions of roles and objectives do not align. These factors are critical to the success of cancer centers but are poorly studied. Methods: We developed a survey adapting components of the Adapted Team Climate Inventory, Measure of Team Identification, and Measure of In-Group Bias. Surveys were administered to research and clinic staff at a National Cancer Institute–designated comprehensive cancer center. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t tests, and analyses of variance. Results: Responses were received from 105 staff (clinic, n = 55; research, n = 50; 61% response rate). Compared with clinic staff, research staff identified more strongly with their own group ( P < .01) but less strongly with the overall cancer center ( P = .02). Both clinic staff and research staff viewed their own group’s goals as clearer than those of the other group ( P < .01) and felt that members of their groups interacted and shared information within ( P < .01) and across ( P < .01) groups more than the other group did. Research staff perceived daily outcomes as more important than did clinic staff ( P = .05), specifically research-related outcomes ( P = .07). Conclusion: Although there are many similarities between clinic and research teams, we also identified key differences, including perceptions of goal clarity and sharing, understanding and alignment with cancer center goals, and importance of outcomes. Future studies should examine how variation in perceptions and group dynamics between clinic and research teams may impact function and processes of cancer care.

The electronic health record as a clinical trials tool: Opportunities and challenges

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 237-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monica M Bertagnolli ◽  
Brian Anderson ◽  
Andre Quina ◽  
Steven Piantadosi
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Electronic Health Record ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Health Record ◽  
Electronic Health Record Data ◽  
Treatment Protocols ◽  
Record Data ◽  
Electronic Health

Clinical trials provide evidence essential for progress in health care, and as the complexity of medical care has increased, the demand for such data has dramatically expanded. Conducting clinical trials has also become more complicated, evolving to meet increasing challenges in delivering clinical care and meeting regulatory requirements. Despite this, the general approach to data collection remains the same, requiring that researchers submit clinical data in response to study treatment protocols, using precisely defined data structures made available in study-specific case report forms. Currently, research data management is not integrated within the patient’s clinical care record, creating added burden for clinical staff and opportunities for error. During the past decade, the electronic health record has become standard across the US healthcare system and is increasingly used to collect and analyze data reporting quality metrics for clinical care delivery. Recently, electronic health record data have also been used to address clinical research questions; however, this approach has significant drawbacks due to the unstructured and incomplete nature of current electronic health record data. This report describes steps necessary to use the electronic health record as a tool for conducting high-quality clinical research.

scholarly journals Barriers to Enrollment of Elderly Adults in Early-Phase Cancer Clinical Trials

2008 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 162-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele Basche ◽  
Anna E. Barón ◽  
S. Gail Eckhardt ◽  
Lodovico Balducci ◽  
Martha Persky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Early Phase ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Experimental Treatment ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Barriers To Participation ◽  
University Center ◽  
Barriers To Enrollment

Purpose: To describe patient/family and logistical barriers to participation in university-based, early-phase cancer clinical trials for adults age ≥ 65 years, and to identify influences on their decisions to participate. Participants and Methods: In-person surveys were administered to subjects age ≥ 65 years with advanced tumors who had received prior chemotherapy. Subjects were recruited from private medical oncology practices collaborating with the University of Colorado and Moffitt Cancer Center research networks. Results: Three hundred individuals (51% age 65 to 74 and 49% age 75 or older) responded. Overall, 60% reported one or more barriers to participation in an early-phase trial; logistical barriers such as driving or time demands (34%) or reluctance to be treated at a university center (21%) were most common. Seniors age 75 or older were more reluctant to be treated at a university center (27% v 14%; P = .005), or concerned about loss of continuity with their primary oncologist (24% v 15%, P = .05). Older seniors were also significantly more reluctant than younger seniors to consider treatments with substantial nausea, vomiting, or fatigue. Older and younger seniors differed little in their preferred sources of information; both age groups emphasized the importance of the primary oncologist (100%), a nurse who provides experimental treatment (93%), other patients (83%) or acquaintances who had received experimental treatment (83%). Conclusion: Potential strategies to overcome barriers to enrollment of seniors into early-phase trials include providing more information about trials to community oncologists and prospective enrollees and assisting these individuals in navigating logistical barriers to enrollment.

Improving hematology/oncology clinical research recruitment via universal prescreening: The VA Connecticut (VACT) Cancer Center experience.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 79-79
Author(s):  
Jenny Jing Xiang ◽  
Alicia Roy ◽  
Christine Summers ◽  
Monica Delvy ◽  
Jessica Lee O'Donovan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Research Recruitment ◽  
Lung Cancer Patients ◽  
Study Enrollment

79 Background: Patient-trial matching is a critical step in clinical research recruitment that requires extensive review of clinical data and trial requirements. Prescreening, defined as identifying potentially eligible patients using select eligibility criteria, may streamline the process and increase study enrollment. We describe the real-world experience of implementing a standardized, universal clinical research prescreening protocol within a VA cancer center and its impact on research enrollment. Methods: An IRB approved prescreening protocol was implemented at the VACT Cancer Center in March 2017. All patients with a suspected or confirmed diagnosis of cancer are identified through tumor boards, oncology consults, and clinic lists. Research coordinators perform chart review and manually enter patient demographics, cancer type and stage, and treatment history into a REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) database. All clinical trials and their eligibility criteria are also entered into REDCap and updated regularly. REDCap generates real time lists of potential research studies for each patient based on his/her recorded data. The primary oncologist is alerted to a patient’s potential eligibility prior to upcoming clinic visits and thus can plan to discuss clinical research enrollment as appropriate. Results: From March 2017 to December 2020, a total of 2548 unique patients were prescreened into REDCAP. The mean age was 71.5 years, 97.5% were male, and 15.5% were African American. 32.57 % patients had genitourinary cancer, 17.15% had lung cancer, and 46.15% were undergoing malignancy workup. 1412 patients were potentially eligible after prescreening and 556 patients were ultimately enrolled in studies. The number of patients enrolled on therapeutic clinical trials increased after the implementation of the prescreening protocol (35 in 2017, 64 in 2018, 78 in 2019, and 55 in 2020 despite the COVID19 pandemic). Biorepository study enrollment increased from 8 in 2019 to 15 in 2020. The prescreening protocol also enabled 200 patients to be enrolled onto a lung nodule liquid biopsy study from 2017 to 2019. Our prescreening process captured 98.57% of lung cancer patients entered into the cancer registry during the same time period. Conclusions: Universal prescreening streamlined research recruitment operations and was associated with yearly increases in clinical research enrollment at a VA cancer center. Our protocol identified most new lung cancer patients, suggesting that, at least for this malignancy, potential study patients were not missed. The protocol was integral in our program becoming the top accruing VA site for NCI’s National Clinical Trial Network (NCTN) studies since 2019.

scholarly journals The European Multicentre Bronchiectasis Audit and Research Collaboration (EMBARC): experiences from a successful ERS Clinical Research Collaboration

Breathe ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 180-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
James D. Chalmers ◽  
Megan Crichton ◽  
Pieter C. Goeminne ◽  
Michael R. Loebinger ◽  
Charles Haworth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
List Type ◽  
European Respiratory Society ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Research Education

In contrast to airway diseases like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma, and rare diseases such as cystic fibrosis, there has been little research and few clinical trials in bronchiectasis. Guidelines are primarily based on expert opinion and treatment is challenging because of the heterogeneous nature of the disease.In an effort to address decades of underinvestment in bronchiectasis research, education and clinical care, the European Multicentre Bronchiectasis Audit and Research Collaboration (EMBARC) was established in 2012 as a collaborative pan-European network to bring together bronchiectasis researchers. The European Respiratory Society officially funded EMBARC in 2013 as a Clinical Research Collaboration, providing support and infrastructure to allow the project to grow.EMBARC has now established an international bronchiectasis registry that is active in more than 30 countries both within and outside Europe. Beyond the registry, the network participates in designing and facilitating clinical trials, has set international research priorities, promotes education and has participated in producing the first international bronchiectasis guidelines. This manuscript article the development, structure and achievements of EMBARC from 2012 to 2017.Educational aimsTo understand the role of Clinical Research Collaborations as the major way in which the European Respiratory Society can stimulate clinical research in different disease areasTo understand some of the key features of successful disease registriesTo review key epidemiological, clinical and translational studies of bronchiectasis contributed by the European Multicentre Bronchiectasis Audit and Research Collaboration (EMBARC) project in the past 5 yearsTo understand the key research priorities identified by EMBARC for the next 5 years

Providing oncologic care with access to clinical trials to an underserved and minority population: The Mayo Clinic/Indian Health Service experience.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 79-79
Author(s):  
Donald W. Northfelt ◽  
Chara Chamie ◽  
Farhia Omar ◽  
Janet Okamoto ◽  
Timothy Mathews ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Health Service ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Mayo Clinic ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Indian Health Service ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Indian Health

79 Background: Novel mechanisms are needed to provide high quality oncologic clinical care and clinical trial access to underserved and minority populations (UMP). UMP are underrepresented in cancer clinical trials, thus limiting the generalizability of the research. As a National Cancer Institute-Comprehensive Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic has the responsibility to ensure that its cancer care reaches a diverse patient population. Mayo Clinic in Arizona developed a clinical oncology practice in collaboration with the US Indian Health Service at Phoenix Indian Medical Center (PIMC), in part to address these needs. The relationship between Mayo and PIMC is invaluable and serves a crucial need in the community. The Mayo consultants serve as staff physicians in the “Oncology Center of Excellence” at PIMC and see 100 – 200 tribal members annually with new diagnoses of cancer or blood disorders. Being onsite at PIMC allows Mayo consultants to integrate seamlessly into the wider PIMC practice. Methods: Descriptive demographic data from the MCA-PIMC clinical practice were obtained from the PIMC practice database 2008 - 2017. Enrollment of MCA-PIMC patients into MCA cancer clinical trials were prospectively enumerated. Results: Between the time period of 2008-2017, 356 breast cancer patients and 259 colorectal cancer patients were seen by Mayo Clinic oncologists and the PIMC nurse practitioner. During the period of 2016-2017, there were 13 clinical trial referrals from PIMC with 8 of those patients being enrolled in Mayo cancer clinical trials. Conclusions: High quality oncologic clinical care can be provided via unique collaborations between academic oncology program and UMP-focused care provider. This mechanism allows access to cancer clinical trial opportunities for UMP. Prior to the established partnership, there were no Native American patients referred to clinical trials from PIMC, showing the critical pathway that has been forged. Importantly, this is the only known program of its kind in the country. By imbedding the cancer provider in the community, we are able to build trust with the underserved community and create a pathway to a quality care and clinical research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document