Does the innovative 4R Care Delivery Model improve timing and sequencing of guideline recommended breast cancer care in safety net and non-safety net centers?

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 562-562
Author(s):  
Christine B. Weldon ◽  
Julia Rachel Trosman ◽  
Della F. Makower ◽  
Bruce D. Rapkin ◽  
Moreen Bozier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Similar Rate ◽  
Care Patient ◽  
Control Cohort ◽  
Breast Cancer Care ◽  
Recommended Care ◽  
Reported Data

562 Background: Under the NCI ASCO Teams Project, we proposed a 4R Model which enables patient (pt) and care team to manage timing and sequencing of interdependent care with a novel multimodality 4R Care Project Plan (Trosman JOP ’16). 4R (Right Info/Care/Patient/Time) was previously piloted at 3 Chicago centers (Weldon ASCO ‘18). Methods: A new study tested impact of 4R on timing and sequencing of guideline recommended care at 4 safety net and 3 non safety net US centers. 4R Plans were provided to stage 0-III breast cancer pts Jan-Nov’18, 4R cohort. Clinical and pt reported data analyses compared 4R cohort (N=105) to a historical control cohort of pts who received care pre-4R, Jan - Dec ’17 (N=190). Results: We significantly improved 3 referral metrics and 4 referral completion metrics - receipt of care by pts who were referred (Table). After referrals, safety net pts had a significant increase in 4R vs control cohort in receiving genetic consult (72%, 21/29 vs. 42%, 18/43, p=.02) and dental visit (100%, 6/6 vs. 20%, 1/5, p=.02). They had lower increases in flu shot referrals (41%, 24/58, vs 36%, 37/104, NS) and dental referrals (10%, 6/58, vs 5%, 5/104, NS) than non safety net pts who had significant increases. Other metrics improved at a similar rate for safety net and non safety net pts. Conclusions: 4R markedly improved referral and receipt of interdependent guideline recommended breast cancer care. For most metrics safety net pts benefited from 4R at a similar or higher rate than non safety net pts, indicating that 4R may reduce care disparities. Low increases in referrals for safety net pts and in trial referral/enrollment for all pts must be addressed. An expansion of 4R across the US continues this work. [Table: see text]

Does the innovative 4R Care Delivery Model improve timing and sequencing of guideline recommended breast cancer care in safety net and non-safety net centers?

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 36-36
Author(s):  
Christine B. Weldon ◽  
Julia Rachel Trosman ◽  
Della F. Makower ◽  
Bruce D. Rapkin ◽  
Moreen Bozier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Similar Rate ◽  
Care Patient ◽  
Control Cohort ◽  
Breast Cancer Care ◽  
Recommended Care ◽  
Reported Data

36 Background: Under the NCI ASCO Teams Project, we proposed a 4R Model which enables patient (pt) and care team to manage timing and sequencing of interdependent care with a novel multimodality 4R Care Project Plan (Trosman JOP ’16). 4R (Right Info/Care/Patient/Time) was previously piloted at 3 Chicago centers (Weldon ASCO ‘18). Methods: A new study tested impact of 4R on timing and sequencing of guideline recommended care at 4 safety net and 3 non safety net US centers. 4R Plans were provided to stage 0-III breast cancer pts Jan - Nov’18, 4R cohort. Clinical and pt reported data analyses compared 4R cohort (N = 105) to a historical control cohort of pts who received care pre-4R, Jan - Dec ’17 (N = 190). Results: We significantly improved 3 referral metrics and 4 referral completion metrics - receipt of care by pts who were referred (Table). After referrals, safety net pts had a significant increase in 4R vs control cohort in receiving genetic consult (72%, 21/29 vs. 42%, 18/43, p = .02) and dental visit (100%, 6/6 vs. 20%, 1/5, p = .02). They had lower increases in flu shot referrals (41%, 24/58, vs 36%, 37/104, NS) and dental referrals (10%, 6/58, vs 5%, 5/104, NS) than non safety net pts who had significant increases. Other metrics improved at a similar rate for safety net and non safety net pts. Conclusions: 4R markedly improved referral and receipt of interdependent guideline recommended breast cancer care. For most metrics safety net pts benefited from 4R at a similar or higher rate than non safety net pts, indicating that 4R may reduce care disparities. Low increases in referrals for safety net pts and in trial referral/enrollment for all pts must be addressed. An expansion of 4R across the US continues this work. [Table: see text]

4R Program results: What is the impact of 4R care delivery model on patient self-management and which patients benefited?

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19211-e19211
Author(s):  
Julia Rachel Trosman ◽  
Christine B. Weldon ◽  
Della F. Makower ◽  
Bruce D. Rapkin ◽  
Moreen Bozier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Care Patient ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Visual Feature ◽  
Control Cohort ◽  
Historical Cohort ◽  
The Impact

e19211 Background: We previously proposed a 4R model of teamwork and patient self-management (pSM) in cancer care (NCI ASCO Teams Project, Trosman JOP 2016). 4R (Right Info / Care / Patient / Time) enables patient and care team to manage complex care with an innovative 4R Care Sequence plan, including a novel visual feature describing timing and sequence of care. We report final results of a program which tested 4R at 5 safety net and 5 non safety net US centers from 2016 to 2019. Methods: Patients with stage 0-III breast cancer received 4R plans (4R Cohort). We surveyed 4R cohort and a historical control cohort of patients receiving care at same centers pre-4R. We assessed the usefulness of 4R to the 4R cohort and the impact on pSM in 4R cohort compared to historical cohort. Results: Survey response rates: 63%, 422/670 (4R cohort); 47%, 466/992 (control). 4R significantly increased the composite pSM score and 5 of 7 pSM metrics vs control (Table). The increase was not influenced by patient age, stage or whether treated at safety net site. pSM scores increased in 4R vs control cohort to a similar extent for patients < 65 years old (74% vs 51%, p = .0001) as for patients ≥ 65 years old (78% vs 57%, p = .0002). pSM improved similarly for patients with stage 0 or I breast cancer (77% vs 56%, p = .0001) as for patients with stage II or III breast cancer (72% vs 54%, p = .0001). Safety net patients showed pSM increase (77% vs 51%, p = .0001) similar to non safety net patients (74% vs 58%, p = .0002). Within the 4R cohort, 80% found 4R useful for organizing care and 70% found the novel visual feature useful to manage care timing and sequence. Usefulness was similar for age groups and stages, but higher for safety net than non safety net patients (88% vs 74%, p = .0008). Conclusions: 4R markedly improved patient self-management in early breast cancer across age groups and cancer stages, but further enhancements are needed to benefit as many patients as possible. 4R benefits in safety net setting indicate that 4R may reduce disparities. [Table: see text]

Results from a pilot of an innovative 4R Cancer Care Delivery Model in early breast cancer: Impact on timing and sequencing of guideline recommended care.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 281-281
Author(s):  
Christine B. Weldon ◽  
Julia Rachel Trosman ◽  
Claudia B. Perez ◽  
Swati Kulkarni ◽  
Seema Ahsan Khan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Neoadjuvant Therapy ◽  
Early Breast Cancer ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Community Safety ◽  
Control Cohort ◽  
Recommended Care ◽  
Genetic Test Results

281 Background: Under the “NCI ASCO Teams” Project, we proposed a 4R Model of teamwork and patient self-management (Trosman JOP ’16). 4R = Right Info / Care / Patient / Time. It enables patient and care team to manage timing / sequencing of interdependent care with an innovative multimodality personalized 4R Care Project Plan. We piloted 4R at 3 centers (academic, community, safety net) and assessed impact on timing / sequencing of guideline based care. Methods: 4R Plans were administered to breast cancer patients stage 0-III Sept ’17 – Aug ’17. Clinical data for 185 patients who received 4R (4R cohort) were compared with a historical control cohort of comparable patients who received care pre-4R, Jun ’16 – May ’17. We used simple frequencies and Fisher’s exact test in analyses. Results: We improved timing / sequencing of 7 guideline recommended metrics (Table). Significant improvements were shown for care lacking in the control cohort. 4R improved rate of patients receiving genetic test results and fertility in a timely manner. Neoadjuvant therapy rate doubled, but low sample size precluded statistical conclusions. However, timing / sequencing of care needed prior to neoadjuvant therapy (eg fertility, flu shot) were significantly improved. Conclusions: The 4R model significantly improved timing / sequencing of guideline recommended care in early breast cancer. An ongoing 4R pilot at 12 additional cancer centers across the U.S. is continuing to accrue patients and focusing on other guideline-recommended metrics. [Table: see text]

4R program results: What is the impact of 4R care delivery model on patient self-management and which patients benefited?

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 139-139
Author(s):  
Julia Rachel Trosman ◽  
Christine B. Weldon ◽  
Della F. Makower ◽  
Bruce D. Rapkin ◽  
Moreen Bozier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Care Patient ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Visual Feature ◽  
Control Cohort ◽  
Historical Cohort ◽  
The Impact

139 Background: We previously proposed a 4R model of teamwork and patient self-management (pSM) in cancer care (NCI ASCO Teams Project, Trosman JOP 2016). 4R (Right Info/Care/Patient/Time) enables patient and care team to manage complex care with an innovative 4R Care Sequence plan, including a novel visual feature describing timing and sequence of care. We report final results of a program which tested 4R at 5 safety net and 5 non safety net US centers from 2016 to 2019. Methods: Patients with stage 0-III breast cancer received 4R plans (4R Cohort). We surveyed 4R cohort and a historical control cohort of patients receiving care at same centers pre-4R. We assessed the usefulness of 4R to the 4R cohort and the impact on pSM in 4R cohort compared to historical cohort. Results: Survey response rates: 63%, 422/670 (4R cohort); 47%, 466/992 (control). 4R significantly increased the composite pSM score and 5 of 7 pSM metrics vs control (Table). The increase was not influenced by patient age, stage or whether treated at safety net site. pSM scores increased in 4R vs control cohort to a similar extent for patients < 65 years old (74% vs 51%, p = .0001) as for patients ≥ 65 years old (78% vs 57%, p = .0002). pSM improved similarly for patients with stage 0 or I breast cancer (77% vs 56%, p = .0001) as for patients with stage II or III breast cancer (72% vs 54%, p = .0001). Safety net patients showed pSM increase (77% vs 51%, p = .0001) similar to non safety net patients (74% vs 58%, p = .0002). Within the 4R cohort, 80% found 4R useful for organizing care and 70% found the novel visual feature useful to manage care timing and sequence. Usefulness was similar for age groups and stages, but higher for safety net than non safety net patients (88% vs 74%, p = .0008). Conclusions: 4R markedly improved patient self-management in early breast cancer across age groups and cancer stages, but further enhancements are needed to benefit as many patients as possible. 4R benefits in safety net setting indicate that 4R may reduce disparities. [Table: see text]

Evaluation of Patterns in Access to Breast Cancer Care and Breast Cancer Presentation in a Safety Net Patient Population

2021 ◽  
pp. 000313482096628
Author(s):  
Erica Choe ◽  
Hayoung Park ◽  
Ma’at Hembrick ◽  
Christine Dauphine ◽  
Junko Ozao-Choy
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Breast Cancer Screening ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Patient Population ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Minority Women ◽  
Breast Cancer Care ◽  
Safety Net Hospital ◽  
Screening Mammograms

Background While prior studies have shown the apparent health disparities in breast cancer diagnosis and treatment, there is a gap in knowledge with respect to access to breast cancer care among minority women. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer from 2014 to 2016 to evaluate how patients presented and accessed cancer care services in our urban safety net hospital. Patient demographics, cancer stage, history of breast cancer screening, and process of referral to cancer care were collected and analyzed. Results Of the 202 patients identified, 61 (30%) patients were younger than the age of 50 and 75 (63%) were of racial minority background. Only 39% of patients with a new breast cancer were diagnosed on screening mammogram. Women younger than the age of 50 ( P < .001) and minority women ( P < .001) were significantly less likely to have had any prior screening mammograms. Furthermore, in patients who met the screening guideline age, more than half did not have prior screening mammograms. Discussion Future research should explore how to improve breast cancer screening rates within our county patient population and the potential need for revision of screening guidelines for minority patients.

Quality of care for breast cancer patients in Japan: An analysis of the Japanese Breast Cancer Registry

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6547-6547
Author(s):  
H. Mukai ◽  
T. Higashi ◽  
T. Iwase ◽  
T. Sobue
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Cancer Registry ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Breast Cancer Care ◽  
Recommended Care ◽  
Adherence Score ◽  
Breast Cancer Registry

6547 Background: In Japan, growing concern that patients do not receive optimum care led to the enactment of the Cancer Control Act in 2006, which mandates the government to undertake initiatives in ensuring the quality of cancer care. Here, we evaluated the current status of breast cancer care in Japan using process-of-care quality indicators (QIs) for breast cancer care. Methods: Combining clinical evidence and expert opinion, we developed 45 QIs covering the continuum of breast cancer care from initial evaluation to follow-up. Each QI describes standards of a particular aspect of care, and its score is calculated as the percentage of applicable patients who received the recommended care (adherence score). Of the 45 QIs, 7 could be scored using data in the Japanese Breast Cancer Registry, which covers about 40% of all Japanese breast cancer patients and has been continuously maintained since 1975. Results: The study population included 15,227 patients registered by 224 facilities in 2005. On average, patients received 72.1% of recommended care. However, substantial variation in adherence was seen across QIs (21–98%). Adherence score was less than 85% in five of seven QIs. Variation across facilities was observed in six QIs. Conclusions: The quality of breast cancer care in Japan has room for improvement in many aspects of care. Although the amount of data in the cancer registry suitable for quality assessment is limited, it is useful in detecting quality problems. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Does the innovative 4R Cancer Care Delivery Model improve patient self-management in safety net and non-safety net centers?

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 172-172
Author(s):  
Julia Rachel Trosman ◽  
William John Gradishar ◽  
Della F. Makower ◽  
Bruce D. Rapkin ◽  
Moreen Bozier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Care Delivery ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Care Patient ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Control Cohort ◽  
Similar Extent ◽  
Care Delivery Model ◽  
The Us ◽  
Care Project ◽  
Improve Patient

172 Background: Under the NCI ASCO Teams Project, we proposed a 4R Model of teamwork and patient self-management (pSM) (Trosman JOP ’16). 4R (Right Info/Care/Patient/Time) enables patient (pt) and care team to manage complex care continuum with an innovative multimodality 4R Care Project Plan. 4R includes a novel “project” feature – a graphical description of care interdependencies. 4R was previously piloted at 3 Chicago centers (Trosman ASCO ‘18). Methods: In this new study, we improved and tested 4R for impact on pSM at 4 safety net and 3 non safety net centers across the US. 4R Plans were provided to stage 0-III breast cancer pts Jan - Nov’18 (4R cohort). We surveyed the 4R cohort and a historical control cohort of pts who received care at same centers pre-4R, Jan - Dec ’17. Results: Survey response rates: 65%, 105/162 (4R cohort); 44%, 190/432 (control). 4R markedly improved 4 of 5 pSM metrics vs control (Table). Additional analyses showed that safety net pts had a significant increase in 4R vs control cohort in “seldom overwhelmed” (84%, 49/58 vs 64%, 67/104 respectively, p = .007), while non safety net pts had nonsignificant increase. Other metrics improved to a similar extent for safety net vs non safety net pts. Within the 4R cohort, 85% found 4R useful in organizing their care and 73% found 4R’s novel “project” feature useful in understanding care interdependencies. Safety net pts reported similar usefulness of 4R in organizing their care as non safety net pts (88%, 51/58 vs 81%, 38/47, NS) and similar usefulness of the “project’ feature in understanding care interdependencies as non safety net pts (74% vs. 72%, NS). Conclusions: 4R significantly improved patient self-management, but further efforts are needed to expand the benefit to as close to a 100% of pts as feasible. Safety net pts benefited from 4R at similar or higher rates than non safety net pts, indicating that 4R may reduce care disparities. An expansion of 4R across the US continues this work. [Table: see text]

Results from a pilot of an innovative 4R Cancer Care Delivery Model in early breast cancer: Impact on timing and sequencing of guideline recommended care.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 561-561 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine B. Weldon ◽  
Julia Rachel Trosman ◽  
Claudia B. Perez ◽  
Swati Kulkarni ◽  
Seema Ahsan Khan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Early Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Recommended Care ◽  
Delivery Model ◽  
Care Delivery Model

Does the innovative 4R Cancer Care Delivery Model improve patient self-management in safety net and non-safety net centers?

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6601-6601
Author(s):  
Julia Rachel Trosman ◽  
Christine B. Weldon ◽  
Della F. Makower ◽  
Bruce D. Rapkin ◽  
Moreen Bozier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Care Delivery ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Care Patient ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Control Cohort ◽  
Similar Extent ◽  
Care Delivery Model ◽  
The Us ◽  
Improve Patient ◽  
Work Table

6601 Background: Under the NCI ASCO Teams Project, we proposed a 4R Model of teamwork and patient self-management (pSM) (Trosman JOP ’16). 4R (Right Info / Care / Patient / Time) enables patient (pt) and care team to manage complex care continuum with an innovative multimodality 4R Care Project Plan. 4R includes a novel “project” feature – a graphical description of care interdependencies. 4R was previously piloted at 3 Chicago centers (Trosman ASCO ‘18). Methods: In this new study, we improved and tested 4R for impact on pSM at 4 safety net and 3 non safety net centers across the US. 4R Plans were provided to stage 0-III breast cancer pts Jan - Nov’18 (4R cohort). We surveyed the 4R cohort and a historical control cohort of pts who received care at same centers pre-4R, Jan - Dec ’17. Results: Survey response rates: 65%, 105/162 (4R cohort); 44%, 190/432 (control). 4R markedly improved 4 of 5 pSM metrics vs control (Table). Additional analyses showed that safety net pts had a significant increase in 4R vs control cohort in “seldom overwhelmed” (84%, 49/58 vs 64%, 67/104 respectively, p = .007), while non safety net pts had nonsignificant increase. Other metrics improved to a similar extent for safety net vs non safety net pts. Within the 4R cohort, 85% found 4R useful in organizing their care and 73% found 4R’s novel “project” feature useful in understanding care interdependencies. Safety net pts reported similar usefulness of 4R in organizing their care as non safety net pts (88%, 51/58 vs 81%, 38/47, NS) and similar usefulness of the “project’ feature in understanding care interdependencies as non safety net pts (74% vs. 72%, NS). Conclusions: 4R significantly improved patient self-management, but further efforts are needed to expand the benefit to as close to a 100% of pts as feasible. Safety net pts benefited from 4R at similar or higher rates than non safety net pts, indicating that 4R may reduce care disparities. An expansion of 4R across the US continues this work. [Table: see text]

Outcomes in breast cancer from the patient perspective: Development of an innovative, user-centered platform for collection and reporting of patient-reported data.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 188-188
Author(s):  
Elena Tsangaris ◽  
Rakasa Pattanaik ◽  
Joanna O'Gorman ◽  
Jessica Means ◽  
Noah Sarucia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Web Application ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Quality Improvement Initiative ◽  
Breast Cancer Care ◽  
Clinical Implementation ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Reported Data ◽  
User Centered

188 Background: Transition towards a patient-centered healthcare model has been recognized as an important step towards improving the quality and coordination of breast cancer care. Although evidence suggests that patient self-reporting of quality of life improves clinical care, there are significant barriers to successful collection and use of patient-reported data (PRD) including a lack of a technology designed to fully engage patients and providers, limited electronic health record (EHR) integration, and suboptimal clinical implementation strategies. To address this, our team developed imPROVE, an innovative and customizable patient-reported data (PRD) collection platform consisting of a patient web-application and a clinician portal. Methods: This study was performed as a quality improvement initiative at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) and Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH). Multiple perspectives were sought from key stakeholders to ensure that the content and design of the platform target the needs of the end-users and garners the latest in technological advances. Development and testing were performed using best practices in user-centered design and agile development, and iterative programming sprints followed by stakeholder feedback and testing. Content was evaluated using probing questions about relevance, comprehensiveness, and clarity. Design was assessed through feedback about the look and feel of the platform and its usability. Results: A multidisciplinary team of 28 stakeholders in the field of breast cancer care, patient-reported outcomes research and value-based healthcare was assembled. Recurring group meetings (n = 8), individual patient interviews (n = 23), and two focus groups with the DF/HCC Breast Cancer Advocacy Group, were conducted. The resultant application is a hybrid mHealth application that is supported by iOS and Android and is comprised of five screens (myCare, myStory, myResources, myCommunity, myNotes). Patients are provided written and graphical displays of their PRD as well as tailored resources that are customized depending on their type and stage of treatment. The clinician portal is comprised of an overview table listing all patients enrolled for each individual clinician, as well as individual patient profiles demonstrating demographic, clinical, and outcomes data. Conclusions: imPROVE has the potential to create a paradigm shift in the delivery of care for breast cancer patients. Next steps will include implementation of imPROVE within the breast oncology and plastic surgery services at DFCI and BWH.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document