A process for improving patient survey scores in the oncology care model (OCM).

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 222-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel Perry ◽  
Katie Rudy-Tomczak ◽  
Scott Hines

222 Background: The Oncology Care Model is an alternative payment model created by The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Our goal was to improve patient education and to improve the patient experience. We hired nurse practitioners to achieve this. Methods: Crystal Run Healthcare is a multi-specialty group practice with nine oncologists. A total of 4 nurse practitioners have been hired since implementation of the OCM Program in July 1, 2016. All oncology patients and their family who are scheduled to initiate a new treatment program or a change in an existing treatment are scheduled to meet with a nurse practitioner for 60-75 minutes in order to review details of their treatment including a 13-point treatment summary recommended by the Institute of Medicine. Results: CMS administered anonymous patient surveys at baseline and in rolling 6 month episodes reported every 3 months. Data is represented from January-September 2016 (baseline)and is compared to July 2016-March 2017. Since implementation of our nurse practitioner access program, patient survey scores improved dramatically. Average overall rating improved from the 11th-20th percentile to 71st-80th percentile. The most dramatic improvement occurred in shared decision making which improved from 11th-20th percentile to the 91st-99th percentile. Conclusions: The addition of nurse practitioners who are tasked with educating patients regarding their treatment offers an opportunity for patients to have a comprehensive visit to review treatment details. The most striking improvement was seen in shared decision making which likely reflects the benefits of a prolonged discussion between the nurse practitioner, the patient and their family.[Table: see text]

2021 ◽  
pp. 089801012110627
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Kinchen

The purpose of this quantitative, descriptive, exploratory study was to gauge the degree to which nurse practitioners (NPs) incorporate holistic nursing values in their care, with a special focus on shared decision-making (SDM), using the Nurse Practitioner Holistic Caring Instrument (NPHCI), an investigator-developed scale. A single open-ended question inviting free-text comment was also included, soliciting participants’ views on the holistic attributes of their care. A convenience sample of NPs ( n = 573) was recruited from a southeastern U.S. state Board of Nursing's (BON) publicly available list of licensed NPs. Results suggest that NPs do indeed perceive their care to be holistic, and that they routinely incorporate elements of SDM in their care. Highest scores were accorded to listening, taking time to talk to patients, knowledge of physical condition, soliciting patient input in care decisions, considering how other areas of a patient's life may affect their medical condition, and attention to “what matters most” to the patient. Age, gender, level of education, practice specialty, and location were also associated with inclusion of holistic care. Free-text responses revealed that NPs value holistic care and desire to practice holistically, but identify “lack of time” to incorporate or practice holistic care as a barrier.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 37-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela Spain ◽  
Nathan West ◽  
Stephanie Teixeira-Poit ◽  
Elizabeth Schaefer ◽  
Kerry Ketler

37 Background: Through the Oncology Care Model (OCM), the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services aims to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of cancer care. OCM practices have committed to provide enhanced services to Medicare beneficiaries, including palliative care designed to optimize quality of life. This study examines if OCM practices engaging in early palliative care discussions have timely hospice referrals as well a lower aggressive end-of-life care and Medicare costs. Methods: During site visits to 30 OCM practices, we asked was How and when is palliative care introduced to patients? We used Medicare claims data to stratify the 30 practices into high or low performers based on 3 end-of-life quality measures scores. Next, we examined their scores on Cancer CAHPS shared decision making and Medicare expenditures, as well as what staff reported about the use of palliative care during site visits. Claims and CAHPS data encompass the first 6 months of OCM, July-December 2016. Site visits were conducted February - May 2017. Results: Patient risk scores were equal among practice groups. High Performers said: “Palliative care is introduced right off the bat. We provide information on hospice and palliative care so it’s not a word they find with end of life only. It’s a difficult conversation but you have to put it out there. As part of patient education, we say the differences between palliative care and hospice. Low Performers said: “Palliative care is introduced on a case by case basis. To transfer to an inpatient hospice, now you have to be on your last breath. Programs that get cut because they are not integral to the patients’ acute issues include palliative care. If hospice comes up, I pull palliative care at that point.” Conclusions: Early OCM results support growing evidence that palliative care shared decision making discussions are most beneficial near the time of cancer diagnosis. [Table: see text]


BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e022730 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel C Forcino ◽  
Renata West Yen ◽  
Maya Aboumrad ◽  
Paul J Barr ◽  
Danielle Schubbe ◽  
...  

ObjectiveIn this study, we aim to compare shared decision-making (SDM) knowledge and attitudes between US-based physician assistants (PAs), nurse practitioners (NPs) and physicians across surgical and family medicine specialties.SettingWe administered a cross-sectional, web-based survey between 20 September 2017 and 1 November 2017.Participants272 US-based NPs, PA and physicians completed the survey. 250 physicians were sent a generic email invitation to participate, of whom 100 completed the survey. 3300 NPs and PAs were invited, among whom 172 completed the survey. Individuals who met the following exclusion criteria were excluded from participation: (1) lack of English proficiency; (2) area of practice other than family medicine or surgery; (3) licensure other than physician, PA or NP; (4) practicing in a country other than the US.ResultsWe found few substantial differences in SDM knowledge and attitudes across clinician types, revealing positive attitudes across the sample paired with low to moderate knowledge. Family medicine professionals (PAs) were most knowledgeable on several items. Very few respondents (3%; 95% CI 1.5% to 6.2%) favoured a paternalistic approach to decision-making.ConclusionsRecent policy-level promotion of SDM may have influenced positive clinician attitudes towards SDM. Positive attitudes despite limited knowledge warrant SDM training across occupations and specialties, while encouraging all clinicians to promote SDM. Given positive attitudes and similar knowledge across clinician types, we recommend that SDM is not confined to the patient-physician dyad but instead advocated among other health professionals.


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 3402-3402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lori E. Crosby ◽  
Francis J Real ◽  
Bradley Cruse ◽  
David Davis ◽  
Melissa Klein ◽  
...  

Background: Although hydroxyurea (HU) is an effective disease modifying treatment for sickle cell disease (SCD), uptake remains low in pediatric populations in part due to parental concerns such as side-effects and safety. NHLBI Guidelines recommend shared decision making for HU initiation to elicit family preferences and values; however, clinicians lack specific training. A HU shared decision-making (H-SDM) toolkit was developed to facilitate such discussions (NCT03442114). It includes: 1) decision aids to support parents (brochure, booklet, video narratives, and an in-visit issue card [featuring issues parents reported as key to decision-making about HU]); 2) quality improvement tools to monitor shared decision-making performance; and 3) a curriculum to train clinicians in advanced communication skills to engage parents in shared decision-making. This abstract describes the development and preliminary evaluation of the virtual reality (VR) component of the clinician curriculum. Objectives: The goals are to: 1) describe the development of a VR simulation for training clinicians in advanced communication skills, and 2) present preliminary data about its tolerability, acceptability, and impact. Methods: Immersive VR simulations administered via a VR headset were created. The VR environment was designed to replicate a patient room, and graphical character representatives (avatars) of parents and patients were designed based on common demographics of patients with SCD (Figure 1). During simulations, the provider verbally counseled the avatars around HU initiation with avatars' verbal and non-verbal responses matched appropriately. The H-SDM in-visit issue card was incorporated into the virtual environment to reinforce practice with this tool. The VR curriculum was piloted for initial acceptability with parents of a child with SCD and clinicians at a children's hospital. Evaluation: Hematology providers participated in the workshop training that included information on facilitating shared decision-making with subsequent deliberate practice of skills through VR simulations. Each provider completed at least one VR simulation. The view through the VR headset was displayed on to a projector screen so others could view the virtual interaction. Debriefing occurred regarding use of communication skills and utilization of the issue card. To assess tolerability, providers reported side effects related to participation. To assess acceptability, providers completed a modified version of the Spatial Presence Questionnaire and described their experience. Impact was assessed by self-report on a retrospective pre-post survey of confidence in specific communication skills using a 5-point scale (from not confident at all to very confident). Differences in confidence were assessed using Wilcoxon Signed-ranks tests. Results: Nine providers (5 pediatric hematologists and 4 nurse practitioners at 3 children's hospitals) participated. Tolerability: The VR experience was well tolerated with most providers reporting no side effects (Table 1). Acceptability: All providers agreed or strongly agreed that the VR experience captured their senses and that they felt physically present in the VR environment. Providers described the experience as "enjoyable", "immersive", and "fun". One provider noted, "It (the VR simulation) put me in clinic to experience what it felt like to discuss HU and use the tool." Impact: Providers' self-reported confidence significantly improved after VR simulations on 4 of 5 communication skills: confirming understanding, Z =1.98, p = .05, r = .44, eliciting parent concerns/values, Z = 2.22, p = .03, r = .50, using an elicit-provide-elicit approach, Z =1.8, p = .02, r = .50, minimizing medical jargon, Z = 1.8, p = .07, r = .40, and using open-ended questions, Z =1.98, p = .05, r = .44. Median scores changed by one-point for all responses and effects were medium to large (see Figure 2). Discussion: The VR curriculum was rated as immersive, realistic, and well-tolerated. Providers endorsed it as a desirable training method. Self-report of confidence in shared decision making-related communication skills improved following completion of VR simulation. Thus, initial data support that VR may be an effective method for educating providers to engage parents in shared decision making for HU. Disclosures Quinn: Amgen: Other: Research Support; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.


2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19233-e19233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shanthi Sivendran ◽  
Lalan S. Wilfong ◽  
Elizabeth Horenkamp ◽  
Gabrielle Betty Rocque

e19233 Background: Participation in the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) value-based payment reform, The Oncology Care Model, requires that every beneficiary has a documented 13-point Institute of Medicine (IOM) treatment plan (TP) when commencing antineoplastic therapy. The intent of this document is to enhance shared decision making between the patient and care team by providing transparent treatment recommendations and engaging patients and caregivers in meaningful discussion. There is limited discussion in the literature on how to adapt the CMS recommendations to diverse practice settings while maintaining fidelity to the intent of the TP. Methods: We compare how three clinically and geographically unique OCM participating institutions implemented the TP in their respective institutions within the domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Settings include a community cancer institute in the northeast, an academic hospital setting in the southeast, and a large community cancer network in the southern United States. Results: We identified similar themes in implementation including engaging stakeholders, leveraging information technology, structuring the TP, development of clinic processes and considering scalability. We also describe adaptations unique to the culture and setting of each site. Conclusions: Although studies have shown patients do not feel informed of their diagnosis, there are currently many approaches to improving shared decision making including utilizing the 13 points of the IOM TP as mandated by the OCM. We provide practical strategies for incorporation of the TP into clinical care with lessons from diverse settings. As shown by the wide variability in implementing shared decision making, further research is needed to optimize illness understanding. Additionally, optimal implementation of CMS’s IOM TP would ideally include concrete metrics measuring impact on shared decision making, illness understanding, or patient satisfaction.


Heart ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. heartjnl-2021-320194
Author(s):  
Judith J A M van Beek-Peeters ◽  
Jop B L van der Meer ◽  
Miriam C Faes ◽  
Annemarie J B M de Vos ◽  
Martijn W A van Geldorp ◽  
...  

ObjectiveTo provide insight into professionals’ perceptions of and experiences with shared decision-making (SDM) in the treatment of symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS).MethodsA semistructured interview study was performed in the heart centres of academic and large teaching hospitals in the Netherlands between June and December 2020. Cardiothoracic surgeons, interventional cardiologists, nurse practitioners and physician assistants (n=21) involved in the decision-making process for treatment of severe AS were interviewed. An inductive thematic analysis was used to identify, analyse and report patterns in the data.ResultsFour primary themes were generated: (1) the concept of SDM, (2) knowledge, (3) communication and interaction, and (4) implementation of SDM. Not all respondents considered patient participation as an element of SDM. They experienced a discrepancy between patients’ wishes and treatment options. Respondents explained that not knowing patient preferences for health improvement hinders SDM and complicating patient characteristics for patient participation were perceived. A shared responsibility for improving SDM was suggested for patients and all professionals involved in the decision-making process for severe AS.ConclusionsProfessionals struggle to make highly complex treatment decisions part of SDM and to embed patients’ expectations of treatment and patients’ preferences. Additionally, organisational constraints complicate the SDM process. To ensure sustainable high-quality care, professionals should increase their awareness of patient participation in SDM, and collaboration in the pathway for decision-making in severe AS is required to support the documentation and availability of information according to the principles of SDM.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haske Van Veenendaal ◽  
Loes J Peters ◽  
Dirk T Ubbink ◽  
Fabienne E Stubenrouch ◽  
Anne M Stiggelbout ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND Shared decision-making (SDM) is particularly important in oncology since many treatments involve serious side effects, and treatment decisions involve a trade-off of benefits and risks. However, implementation of SDM in oncology care is challenging and clinicians state that it is difficult to apply SDM in their actual workplace. Training clinicians is known to be an effective means of improving SDM, but is considered time-consuming. OBJECTIVE This study addresses the effectiveness of an individual SDM training program, using the concept of deliberate practice. METHODS This multicentre single-blinded randomized clinical trial will be performed in 12 Dutch hospitals. Clinicians involved in decisions with oncology patients are invited to participate in the study and are allocated to the control group or intervention group. All clinicians will record 3 decision-making processes, with 3 different oncology patients. Clinicians in the intervention group receive the SDM-intervention: completing E-learnings, reflecting on feedback reports, doing a self-assessment and defining 1-3 personal learning questions, and participating in face-to-face coaching. Clinicians in the control group do not receive the SDM-intervention until the end of the study. The primary outcome will be the extent in which clinicians involve their patients in the decision-making process, as scored using the OPTION-5 instrument. As secondary outcome patients will rate their perceived involvement in the decision-making and the duration of the consultations will be registered. RESULTS We hypothesize that clinicians exposed to this intervention are more likely to adopt SDM behaviours than clinicians who do not. A secondary aim is to evaluate whether patients perceive more involvement in the decision-making process. CONCLUSIONS This theory-based and blended approach will increase our knowledge about effective and feasible training methods for clinicians in the field of SDM. The intervention will be tailored to the context of individual clinicians and will target knowledge, attitude and skills of clinicians. Patients are involved in the design and implementation of the study. CLINICALTRIAL This trial is retrospectively registered (Netherlands Trial Registry number NL9647; August 03, 2021, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/9647). All participating clinicians and their patients will receive information about the study and complete an informed consent form beforehand. Approval for the study was obtained from the Ethical Review Board (medical research ethics committee Delft and Leiden, the Netherlands (N20.170)).


2014 ◽  
Vol 04 (12) ◽  
pp. 824-835 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Lise Holm ◽  
Anne Lyberg ◽  
Ingela Berggren ◽  
Elisabeth Severinsson

2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Pryce ◽  
Amanda Hall

Shared decision-making (SDM), a component of patient-centered care, is the process in which the clinician and patient both participate in decision-making about treatment; information is shared between the parties and both agree with the decision. Shared decision-making is appropriate for health care conditions in which there is more than one evidence-based treatment or management option that have different benefits and risks. The patient's involvement ensures that the decisions regarding treatment are sensitive to the patient's values and preferences. Audiologic rehabilitation requires substantial behavior changes on the part of patients and includes benefits to their communication as well as compromises and potential risks. This article identifies the importance of shared decision-making in audiologic rehabilitation and the changes required to implement it effectively.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document