Quality assessment of tumor boards across an academic and community cancer network.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 122-122
Author(s):  
Daniel Aaron Roberts ◽  
Robert Stuver ◽  
Igor Schillevoort ◽  
Jessica A. Zerillo
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Gynecologic Oncology ◽  
The United States ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
Assessment Survey ◽  
Cancer Network

122 Background: Cancer tumor boards (TB), or multidisciplinary team meetings are standard of care in oncology care worldwide. Specific components are described by the American College of Surgeon's Commission on Cancer Program. Most data show consistent improvement in outcomes including a change in diagnostic findings, treatment, and possibly improved survival with TBs. Methods: We adapted a performance assessment tool based on a validated survey implemented in the United Kingdom. An initial survey aimed at assessing tumor board structure and design was sent to 21 TB leaders, and subsequently a tumor board quality assessment survey was sent to 175 participants throughout an academic and community network. The quality assessment survey required participants to identify an answer on a 5-point Likert scale in the categories of "very poor, poor, average, good, and very good". Results: TB leaders representing 16 of 21 (response rate 76%) TBs responded to the structure/design survey. Twelve TBs were from the academic center and included diseases such as Gynecologic Oncology, Cutaneous Oncology, Genitourinary Oncology, and Sarcoma, while four were from community sites. TB leaders indicated that 55% of TBs did not receive CME credit and 60% did not document their recommendations. One hundred eleven TB participants of 175 (response rate 63%) responded to the quality assessment survey. Participants identified the following strengths: 1) all relevant subspecialties present for meetings, 2) respectful teamwork and culture, and 3) operating on an organized agenda. Areas for improvement included: 1) inconsistent tumor board recommendation documentation and 2) post-meeting coordination of care. Results were reviewed with network and cancer center leadership as well as with the Cancer Committee. Conclusions: We assessed our own tumor boards across our cancer network by utilizing an adapted version of a validated TB performance measurement tool for the first time in the United States. Through this assessment we identified key areas for improvement including the need for obtaining CME credit for TB attendance, and developed a policy, process, and template for documenting TB recommendations in an easily accessible centralized location.

Utility of a multidisciplinary tumor board in the management of pancreatic diseases.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 319-319
Author(s):  
David G. Brauer ◽  
Matthew S. Strand ◽  
Dominic E. Sanford ◽  
Maria Majella Doyle ◽  
Faris Murad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Multidisciplinary Care ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Common Diagnosis ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
Cancer Network ◽  
The Impact

319 Background: Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards (MTBs) are a requirement for comprehensive cancer centers and are routinely used to coordinate multidisciplinary care in oncology. Despite their widespread use, the impact of MTBs is not well characterized. We studied the outcomes of all patients presented at our pancreas MTB, with the goal of evaluating our current practices and resource utilization. Methods: Data were prospectively collected for all patients presented at a weekly pancreas-specific MTB over the 12-month period at a single-institution NCI-designated cancer center. The conference is attended by surgical, medical, and radiation oncologists, interventional gastroenterologists, pathologists, and radiologists (diagnostic and interventional). Retrospective chart review was performed at the end of the 12-month period under an IRB-approved protocol. Results: A total of 470 patient presentations were made over a 12-month period. Average age at time of presentation was 61.5 years (range 17 – 89) with 51% males. 61.7% of cases were presented by surgical oncologists and 26% by medical oncologists. 174 cases were the result of new diagnoses or referrals. 78 patients were presented more than once (average of 2.3 times). Pancreatic adenocarcinoma was the most common diagnosis (37%), followed by uncharacterized pancreatic mass (16%), and pancreatic cyst (7%). The treatment plan proposed by the presenting clinician was known or could be evaluated prior to conference in 402 cases. Presentation of a case at MTB changed the plan of management 25% (n = 100) of the time, including MTB recommendation against a planned resection in 46 cases. When the initial plan changed as a result of MTB discussion, the most common new plan was to obtain further diagnostic testing such as biopsy and/or endoscopy (n = 24). Conclusions: MTBs are required and resource-intensive but offer the opportunity to discuss a wide array of pathologies and influence management decisions in a sizable proportion of cases. Additional investigations evaluating adherence rates to MTB decisions and to published guidelines (i.e. National Comprehensive Cancer Network) will further enhance the assessment and utility of MTBs.

Psychology Staffing at Cancer Centers: Data From National Comprehensive Cancer Network Member Institutions

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. e1343-e1354
Author(s):  
Laura Melton ◽  
Diana Krause ◽  
Jessica Sugalski
Keyword(s):  
National Comprehensive Cancer Network ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
The United States ◽  
Direct Patient Care ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Network Member ◽  
Full Time ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Cancer Network

PURPOSE: The field of psycho-oncology is relatively undeveloped, with little information existing regarding the use of psychologists at cancer centers. Comprising 30 leading cancer centers across the United States, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) set out to understand the trends in its Member Institutions. METHODS: The NCCN Best Practices Committee surveyed NCCN Member Institutions regarding their use of psychologists. The survey was administered electronically in the spring/summer of 2017. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 18 cancer centers. Across institutions, 94% have psychologists appointed to provide direct care to their cancer center patients. The number of licensed psychologist full-time equivalents (FTEs) on staff who provide direct patient care ranged from < 1.0 FTE (17%) to 17.0-17.9 FTEs (6%). Regarding psychologist appointments, 41% have both faculty and staff appointments, 41% have all faculty appointments, and 18% have all staff appointments. Forty-three percent of institutions indicated that some licensed psychologists at their centers (ranging from 1%-65%) do not provide any direct clinical care, and 57% indicated that all licensed psychologist on staff devote some amount of time to direct clinical care. The percent of clinical care time that is spent on direct clinical care ranged from 15%-90%. CONCLUSION: There is great variability in psychology staffing, academic appointments, and the amount of direct patient care provided by on-staff psychologists at cancer centers.

scholarly journals Precision Genomic Practice in Oncology: Pharmacist Role and Experience in an Ambulatory Care Clinic

Pharmacy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Farah Raheem ◽  
Pauline Kim ◽  
Meagan Grove ◽  
Patrick J. Kiel
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial Design ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
The United States ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Molecular Testing ◽  
Precision Oncology ◽  
Care Clinic

Recent advancements in molecular testing, the availability of cost-effective technology, and novel approaches to clinical trial design have facilitated the implementation of tumor genome sequencing into standard of care oncology practices. Current models of precision oncology practice include specialized clinics or consultation services based on a molecular tumor board (MTB) approach. MTBs are comprised of interprofessional teams of clinicians and scientists who evaluate tumors at the molecular level to guide patient-specific targeted therapy. The practice of precision oncology utilizing MTB-based models is an emerging approach, transforming precision genomics from a novel concept into clinical practice. This rapid shift in practice from cytotoxic therapy to targeted medicine poses challenges, yet brings exciting opportunities to clinical pharmacists practicing in hematology and oncology. Only a few precision genomics programs in the United States have a strong pharmacy presence with oncology pharmacists serving in leadership roles in research, interpreting genomic sequencing, making treatment recommendations, and facilitating off-label drug procurement. This article describes the experience of the precision medicine clinic at the Indiana University Health Simon Cancer Center, with emphasis on the role of the pharmacist in the precision oncology initiative.

A virtual tumor board-driven synaptic knowledge network.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (8_suppl) ◽  
pp. 89-89
Author(s):  
Laurence J. Heifetz ◽  
Ahrin B. Koppel ◽  
Elaine Melissa Kaime ◽  
Daphne Palmer ◽  
Thomas John Semrad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Rural Areas ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Knowledge Network ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Hospital District ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Tumor Boards

89 Background: In 2006, Tahoe Forest Hospital District—a 25-bed hospital in Truckee, CA, a mountain resort community one hour from regional and two hours from academic cancer services—designed and implemented an oncology program utilizing effective telecommunications with a committed academic partner, the UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center in Sacramento. Methods: The UC Davis Cancer Care Network was established with four remote cancer programs, enabling participation in daily virtual tumor boards, clinical trial enrollment, and quality assurance assistance. (Richard J. Bold, et. al., Virtual tumor boards: community-university collaboration to improve quality of care. Community Oncol 10(11):310-315, November 2013.; Laurence J. Heifetz, MD, et. al., A Model for Rural Oncology. J Oncol Pract, 7:168-171, May 2011.). An increasing number of patients were observed to in-migrate to Truckee from even more remote rural areas in the mountains. In 2013, the now Gene Upshaw Memorial Tahoe Forest Cancer Center developed four remote telemedicine clinics to allow even more physically distant patients the capacity to be followed locally. Results: Since we opened the remote telemedicine clinics, our Sullivan-Luallin patient satisfaction scores have averaged 4.82/5.00 for “overall satisfaction with the practice” and 4.90/5.00 for “recommending your provider to others”; our in-migration rate of patients from outside our primary catchment area increased from 43% to 52%: and clinical trial accrual rate averaged 10%. Conclusions: Reducing cancer health disparities is an ASCO mission. (cover, ASCO Connection, July 2014; Laurence J. Heifetz, MD. Country Docs with City Technology Can Address Rural Cancer Care Disparities. Oncol, 29(9):641-644, September 2015.). We believe this synaptic knowledge network effectively addresses that mission for rural communities. This model can be scaled in many configurations to address the inherent degradation of quality care as a function of physical distance to an academic center that rural doctors and patients deal with on a daily basis. The key is to insist on a cultural shift – Do something smart at lunch every day. Attend a virtual tumor board.

Secret sauce in collaborative tumor boards: Team-based characteristics that optimize tumor board functionality.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e23015-e23015
Author(s):  
Barbara Oureilidis-DeVivo
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Organizational Behavior ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
The United States ◽  
Interdisciplinary Teams ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
Decision Making Processes

e23015 Background: Interdisciplinary teams are an indispensable characteristic of modern organizations, particularly in healthcare settings that require specialists to work together to solve multifaceted patient care problems. Multidisciplinary tumor boards (TBs) aim to coordinate multidisciplinary perspectives to help the oncology team devise the best treatment program for the patient. Yet, while this is their purpose, studies have found that TBs do not always achieve that goal effectively. Why are some tumor board (TB) teams more effective than others? This study shed light on key characteristics found among highly effective TBs. It provides a theoretical explanation of their organizational behaviors and structures and their effect on cancer treatment decision-making. The research is grounded in organizational behavior theories that have historical prominence in group decision-making, social hierarchy, and interdisciplinary collaboration, and are used to explain the phenomenon under investigation best. Methods: Qualitative research was used in the study. Data from 44 different TB observations and 18 interviews were gathered over four years at seven research hospitals in the United States and United Kingdom. The data were then coded, analyzed and synthesized with organizational behavior theory to explain the social phenomena under investigation. Results: The study revealed that certain TBs practice strong collaboration displaying high levels of partnership, cooperation, equality, and interdependency, which was incorporated explicitly into their meeting systems to achieve their common goal. Team-based characteristics such as members’ consistent shared preferences and identity, coordinated interactions, a collective learning process, and shared power and partnership are key markers found within these teams that positively influenced treatment decision-making processes and outcomes, earmarking best practices in TB groups. Conclusions: Organizational theory that suggests that for a collaborative process to be effective, team-based mechanisms need to be adopted in which each member respects, trusts, and acknowledges the skills and expertise of other disciplines in the organization, shares team values, decision-making processes, responsibilities, and planning, relies mutually upon other team members, and works outside normal professional boundaries openly and willingly. In an egalitarian structure like that of the TBs reviewed in this study, where preferences and identities are consistent and groups are collaborative, treatment decisions are less biased and incorporate multidisciplinary perspectives. Thus, this study suggests that by possessing both team- and task-based characteristics and practices, TBs engage in best practices, and thereby optimize their functionality.

Characteristics of the Multi Disciplinary Cancer Conference (Tumor Boards) in the COVID 19 era.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e13561-e13561
Author(s):  
Lijo Simpson ◽  
Anju Mathew ◽  
Robert Wojciechowski
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Web Application ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
The United States ◽  
Quality Metrics ◽  
Care Team ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Case Conference ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
Virtual Platform

e13561 Background: Cancer centers in the US are required to discuss a minimum of 15% analytic cases and prospective presentation (minimum 80%) in the multidisciplinary case conference (tumor board, MDCC), per the Commission on Cancer accrediting standards. Tumor board discussion have been shown to improve treatment decision making and patient outcomes. These meetings were in person meetings in the Pre-COVID era. The COVID 19 pandemic and the subsequent requirements for social distancing forced hospitals to move most MDCCs to a virtual format. We report on the large scale utilization of a propriety Care-Coordination platform OncoLens to run MDCCs across the country. Methods: Technology quality metrics were collected from the ongoing daily usage of the platform including time characteristics, care team utilization metrics, average attendance, quality metrics collected for accreditation and clinical trials matching on the OncoLens platform. Results: The virtual platform was accessible to around 8000 providers across the United States. On average per month there were 250 virtual meetings with over 290,000 meeting minutes. Conferences ranged from 30 minutes to 4 hours. 75% of users used the web application 25% of users utilized their smart phones .System uptime was 99.99%. Hospitals were able to conduct General and Site specific conferences. Virtual attendance of the required specialties of Medical Oncology, Radiation Oncology, Surgery, Pathology and Radiology was attained, with the average conference attendance being 14. On average hospitals required 2 administrative training sessions. Most of the case presentations were prospective. This format does enable cancer programs to collect quality metrics around Cancer program accreditation by the American College of Surgeons. A wide variety of common and rare cancer types were discussed in the virtual format. 66% of patients discussed potentially matched to clinical trials during the discussion. Conclusions: The shift of MDCCs to a mostly virtual environment occurred quickly in response to the COVID 19 pandemic. It took an average of 2 training classes to get the cancer care team on board with the use of new technology. It is possible to have high quality discussions and attain metrics for Commission On Cancer accreditation utilizing a virtual platform.

Prescreening to Increase Therapeutic Oncology Trial Enrollment at the Largest Public Hospital in the United States

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Wu ◽  
Amin Yakubov ◽  
Maher Abdul-Hay ◽  
Erica Love ◽  
Gianna Kroening ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Underserved Populations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Health Care ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Therapeutic Trial ◽  
Improvement Program ◽  
Number Of Patients

PURPOSE: The recruitment of underserved patients into therapeutic oncology trials is imperative. The National Institutes of Health mandates the inclusion of minorities in clinical research, although their participation remains under-represented. Institutions have used data mining to match patients to clinical trials. In a public health care system, such expensive tools are unavailable. METHODS: The NYU Clinical Trials Office implemented a quality improvement program at Bellevue Hospital Cancer Center to increase therapeutic trial enrollment. Patients are screened through the electronic medical record, tumor board conferences, and the cancer registry. Our analysis evaluated two variables: number of patients identified and those enrolled into clinical trials. RESULTS: Two years before the program, there were 31 patients enrolled. For a period of 24 months (July 2017 to July 2019), we identified 255 patients, of whom 143 (56.1%) were enrolled. Of those enrolled, 121 (84.6%) received treatment, and 22 (15%) were screen failures. Fifty-five (38.5%) were referred to NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center for therapy. Of the total enrollees, 64% were female, 56% were non-White, and overall median age was 55 years (range: 33-88 years). Our participants spoke 16 different languages, and 57% were non–English-speaking. We enrolled patients into eight different disease categories, with 38% recruited to breast cancer trials. Eighty-three percent of our patients reside in low-income areas, with 62% in both low-income and Health Professional Shortage Areas. CONCLUSION: Prescreening at Bellevue has led to a 4.6-fold increase in patient enrollment to clinical trials. Future research into using prescreening programs at public institutions may improve access to clinical trials for underserved populations.

An ethnographic study illuminating the effect of endogenous and exogenous uncertainty on tumor board decision making.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19156-e19156
Author(s):  
Barbara Oureilidis-DeVivo
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
The United States ◽  
Ethnographic Study ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Multidisciplinary Teams ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Tumor Boards

e19156 Background: Hospital tumor boards (TBs) exist to help multidisciplinary specialists determine the best treatment plan for patients through multidisciplinary input and evidence-based treatment recommendations. However, decision-making processes and outcomes vary and may not consistently follow a linear, rational decision-making process or represent evidenced-based clinical guidelines. The ad hoc nature of multidisciplinary cancer teams can create limitations in interoperable functioning, especially in ambiguous environments. Methods: This qualitative ethnographic study explores levels of patient situational complexity under TB review within different structural dynamics in a group and describes how TBs cope with uncertainty when making treatment decisions. The study reports on original research and used ethnographic methods in 44 tumor boards at seven research hospitals in the United States and United Kingdom. Results: Results show TB decision-making process and outcomes are obstructed by the level of situational complexity in each patient’s case depending on the social dynamics of the group. Conclusions: Although multidisciplinary teams provide the benefit of variety in backgrounds and expertise, this structural diversity can also lead to limitations in the actual functioning of a group. By exploring the variations in this decision-making process, a deeper understanding can be reached of how oncology physicians make decisions about the clinical pathway for cancer patients and how this affects TB functionality.

scholarly journals Targeting Lymph Node Retrieval and Assessment in Stage II Colon Cancer: A Quality Outcome Community-Based Cancer Center Study

2008 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 55-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Grote ◽  
Amy H. Hughes ◽  
Cathy C. Rimmer ◽  
Dale A. Less ◽  
Amy P. Abernethy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Lymph Node ◽  
Lymph Nodes ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Stage Ii ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Gastrointestinal Tumor ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
Stage Ii Colon Cancer

Purpose Adequate lymph node evaluation is required for the proper staging of colon cancer. The current recommended number of lymph nodes that should be retrieved and assessed is 12. Methods The multidisciplinary Gastrointestinal Tumor Board at the Derrick L. Davis Forsyth Regional Cancer Center reviewed and recommended that a minimum of 12 lymph nodes be examined in all cases of colon cancer to ensure proper staging. This recommendation occurred at the end of the first quarter of 2005. To ensure this new standard was being followed, an outcomes study looking at the number of lymph nodes evaluated in stage II colon cancer was initiated. All patients with stage II colon cancer diagnosed between 2004 and 2006 were reviewed. Results There was a statistically significant improvement in the number of stage II colon cancer patients with 12 or more lymph nodes evaluated. Before the Gastrointestinal Tumor Board's recommendation, 49% (40 out of 82 patients) had 12 or more lymph nodes sampled. The median number of lymph nodes evaluated was 11. After the Gastrointestinal Tumor Board's recommendation, 79% (70 out of 88 patients) had 12 or more lymph nodes sampled. The median number of lymph nodes was 16. Conclusion Multidisciplinary tumor boards can impact the quality of care of patients as demonstrated in this study. Although we do not yet have survival data on these patients, based on the previous literature referenced in this article, we would expect to see an improvement in survival rates in patients with 12 or more nodes retrieved and assessed.

scholarly journals Consensus statement: summary of the Quebec Lung Cancer Network recommendations for prioritizing patients with thoracic cancers in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Blais ◽  
M. Bouchard ◽  
M. Chinas ◽  
H. Lizotte ◽  
M. Morneau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care System ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Innovative Therapies ◽  
Services Sociaux ◽  
Cancer Network ◽  
Care System

Background. The emergence of COVID-19 has the potential to change the way the health care system can accommodate various patient populations and may impact patients with non-COVID-19 problematics. The Quebec Lung Cancer Network which oversees the thoracic oncology services in the province of Quebec under the direction of the Ministère de la santé et des services sociaux convened in order to develop recommendations to plan for the potential disruption of services in thoracic oncology in the province of Quebec. This summary has been adapted from the original document posted on the Programme Québécois du Cancer web site at: https://www.msss.gouv.qc.ca/professionnels/documents/coronavirus-2019-ncov/PJ1_Recommandations_oncologie-thoracique-200415.pdf Methods. Optimization plans to the health care system as well as potential prioritization of services were discussed according to varying levels of activity. For each level of activity scenario, propositions were suggested on the services and treatments to prioritize, those that may need to be postponed and well as potential alternatives to care. Results. The principal recommendation is that the cancer center executive committee and the multidisciplinary tumor board should always try to find a solution to maintain standard of care therapy to all patients with thoracic tumors using as needed novel approaches to treatment and the adoption of a network approach to care. Conclusion. The COVID-19 pandemic effect on the health care system remains unpredictable and requires that cancer teams unite and offer the most efficient and innovative therapies to all patients under the variable conditions that may be forced upon them. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document