Implementation of the Institute of Medicine treatment plan in oncology practice.

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.

Author(s):  
John V. Cox ◽  
Jeffery C. Ward ◽  
John C. Hornberger ◽  
Jennifer S. Temel ◽  
Barbara L. McAneny

Patients and payers (government and private) are frustrated with the fee-for-service system (FFS) of payment for outpatient health services. FFS rewards volume and highly valued services, including expensive diagnostics and therapeutics, over lesser valued cognitive services. Proposed payment schemes would incent collaboration and coordination of care among providers and reward quality. In oncology, new payment schemes must address the high costs of all services, particularly drugs, while preserving the robust distribution of sites of service available to patients in the United States. Information technology and personalized cancer care are changing the practice of oncology. Twenty-first century oncology will require increasing cognitive work and shared decision making, both of which are not well regarded in the FFS model. A high proportion of health care dollars are consumed in the final months of life. Effective delivery of palliative and end-of-life care must be addressed by practice and by new models of payment. Value-based reimbursement schemes will require oncology practices to change how they are structured. Lessons drawn from the principles of primary care's Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH) will help oncology practice to prepare for new schemes. PCMH principles place a premium on proactively addressing toxicities of therapies, coordinating care with other providers, and engaging patients in shared decision making, supporting the ideal of value defined in the triple aim—to measurably improve patient experience and quality of care at less cost. Payment reform will be disruptive to all. Oncology must be engaged in policy discussions and guide rational shifts in priorities defined by new payment models.


2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabrielle Rocque ◽  
Ellen Miller-Sonnet ◽  
Alan Balch ◽  
Carrie Stricker ◽  
Josh Seidman ◽  
...  

Although recognized as best practice, regular integration of shared decision-making (SDM) approaches between patients and oncologists remains an elusive goal. It is clear that usable, feasible, and practical tools are needed to drive increased SDM in oncology. To address this goal, we convened a multidisciplinary collaborative inclusive of experts across the health-care delivery ecosystem to identify key principles in designing and testing processes to promote SDM in routine oncology practice. In this commentary, we describe 3 best practices for addressing challenges associated with implementing SDM that emerged from a multidisciplinary collaborative: (1) engagement of diverse stakeholders who have interest in SDM, (2) development and validation of an evidence-based SDM tool grounded within an established conceptual framework, and (3) development of the necessary roadmap and consideration of the infrastructure needed for engendering patient engagement in decision-making. We believe these 3 principles are critical to the success of creating SDM tools to be utilized both within and outside of clinical practice. We are optimistic that shared use across settings will support adoption of this tool and overcome barriers to implementing SDM within busy clinical workflows. Ultimately, we hope that this work will offer new perspectives on what is important to patients and provide an important impetus for leveraging patient preferences and values in decision-making.


10.2196/16511 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e16511
Author(s):  
Domitilla Masi ◽  
Amalia Elvira Gomez-Rexrode ◽  
Rina Bardin ◽  
Joshua Seidman

Background The range of decisions and considerations that women with advanced breast cancer (ABC) face can be overwhelming and difficult to manage. Research shows that most patients prefer a shared decision-making (SDM) approach as it provides them with the opportunity to be actively involved in their treatment decisions. The current engagement of these patients in their clinical decisions is suboptimal. Moreover, implementing SDM into routine clinical care can be challenging as patients may not always feel adequately prepared or may not expect to be involved in the decision-making process. Objective Avalere Health developed the Preparation for Shared Decision-Making (PFSDM) tool to help patients with ABC feel prepared to communicate with their clinicians and engage in decision making aligned with their preferences. The goal of this study was to validate the tool for its acceptability and usability among this patient population. Methods We interviewed a diverse group of women with ABC (N=30). Interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed, and double coded by using NVivo. We assessed 8 themes to understand the acceptability and usability of the tool. Results Interviewees expressed that the tool was acceptable for preparing patients for decision making and would be useful for helping patients know what to expect in their care journey. Interviewees also provided useful comments to improve the tool. Conclusions This validation study confirms the acceptability and usability of the PFSDM tool for women with ABC. Future research should assess the feasibility of the tool’s implementation in the clinical workflow and its impact on patient outcomes.


2019 ◽  
Vol 184 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 467-475 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bella Etingen ◽  
Jennifer N Hill ◽  
Laura J Miller ◽  
Alan Schwartz ◽  
Sherri L LaVela ◽  
...  

Abstract Objective To describe current practices used by Veterans Administration (VA) mental health (MH) providers involved in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatment planning to support engagement of veterans with PTSD in shared decision-making (SDM). Methods Semi-structured interviews with MH providers (n = 9) were conducted at 1 large VA, audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analyzed deductively, guided by a published account of the integral SDM components for MH care. Results While discussing forming a cohesive team with patients, providers noted the importance of establishing rapport and assessing treatment readiness. Providers’ clinical knowledge/expertise, knowledge of the facility’s treatment options, knowledge of how to navigate the VA MH care system, and patient factors (goals/preferences, factors influencing treatment engagement) were noted as important to consider when patients and providers exchange information. When negotiating the treatment plan, providers indicated that conversations should include treatment recommendations and concurrent opportunities for personalization. They also emphasized the importance of discussions to finalize a mutually agreeable patient- and provider-informed treatment plan and measure treatment impact. Conclusion These results offer a preliminary understanding of VA MH providers’ facilitation of SDM for PTSD care. Findings may provide insights for MH providers who wish to engage patients with PTSD in SDM.


2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 76-76
Author(s):  
Gabrielle Betty Rocque ◽  
Amanda Hathaway ◽  
Karina I. Halilova ◽  
Michele Gaguski ◽  
Kathryn A Thomas ◽  
...  

76 Background: Shared decision making (SDM) is a cornerstone of patient-centered care with 85-90% of breast cancer (BC) patients preferring an active or shared role in decision-making for breast surgery. SDM has been shown to, improve patients’ understanding of treatment options, result in more conservative care choices, and lead to lower healthcare costs. However, implementation is complex as numerous misconceptions exist. Methods: We are conducting a multi-site, quality improvement (QI) project to improve SDM behaviors and adherence to quality measures through a combination of provider education and use of a novel technology platform, the Carevive Care Planning System. This platform elicits patient preferences, concerns, history, and symptoms, and presents these data with algorithm-driven recommendations as part of a treatment plan. We report results from baseline provider surveys assessing perception and knowledge of SDM. Results: Baseline surveys from 28 participants were analyzed; 43% from a university based cancer center and 57% from community based cancer centers. Survey respondents were MDs (43%), NPs (7%) and RNs (46%), all specializing in Hematology and/or Oncology. When asked, “What percentage of breast cancer patients prefers an active or shared role in decision making?”, only 29% believed 85-90% of BC patients desired an active or shared role as suggested by surgical literature; 43% believed between 55-70% of patients wanted to be engaged in decision-making. Commonly reported barriers to SDM are shown in the table below. Conclusions: Physicians may underestimate patient’s desire to participate in shared decision-making. The barriers to implementing SDM in oncology practice will likely require multi-faceted interventions to overcome. We aim to address these gaps through an intervention aimed at enhancing knowledge and patient-provider engagement through treatment summaries. [Table: see text]


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]


2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (11) ◽  
pp. 1312-1319 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Calderon ◽  
P. J. Ferrando ◽  
A. Carmona-Bayonas ◽  
U. Lorenzo-Seva ◽  
C. Jara ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 97-102
Author(s):  
Aisha T. Langford ◽  
Stephen K. Williams ◽  
Melanie Applegate ◽  
Olugbenga Ogedegbe ◽  
Ronald S. Braithwaite

Shared decision making (SDM) has increas­ingly become appreciated as a method to enhance patient involvement in health care decisions, patient-provider communication, and patient-centered care. Compared with cancer, the literature on SDM for hyperten­sion is more limited. This is notable because hypertension is the leading risk factor for cardiovascular disease and both conditions disproportionately affect certain subgroups of patients. However, SDM holds prom­ise for improving health equity by better engaging patients in their health care. For example, many reasonable options exist for treating uncomplicated stage-1 hyperten­sion. These options include medication and/ or lifestyle changes such as healthy eating, physical activity, and weight management. Deciding on “the best” plan of action for hypertension management can be challeng­ing because patients have different goals and preferences for treatment. As hyper­tension management may be considered a preference-sensitive decision, adherence to treatment plans may be greater if those plans are concordant with patient prefer­ences. SDM can be implemented in a broad array of care contexts, from patient-provider dyads to interprofessional collaborations. In this article, we argue that SDM has the potential to advance health equity and improve clinical care. We also propose a process to evaluate whether SDM has occurred and suggest future directions for research.Ethn Dis. 2019;29(Suppl 1):97- 102; doi:10.18865/ed.29.S1.97.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. e0254157
Author(s):  
Catherine H. Yu ◽  
Maggie McCann ◽  
Joanna Sale

Background Shared decision-making is a central component of person-centred care and can be facilitated with the use of patient decision aids (PtDA). Barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making and PtDA use have been identified, yet integration of PtDAs into clinical care is limited. We sought to understand why, using the concepts of complexity science. Methods We conducted 60-minute in-depth interviews with patients with diabetes, primary care physicians, nurses and dietitians who had participated in a randomized controlled trial examining the impact of MyDiabetesPlan (an online goal-setting PtDA). Relying on a qualitative description approach, we used a semi-structured interview guide to explore participants’ experiences with using MyDiabetesPlan and how it was integrated into the clinical encounter and clinical care. Audiotapes were transcribed verbatim, then coded independently by two analysts. Findings 17 interviews were conducted (5 physicians, 3 nurses, 2 dietitians, 7 patients). Two themes were developed: (1) MyDiabetesPlan appeared to empower patients by providing tailored patient-important information which engaged them in decision-making and self-care. Patients’ use of MyDiabetesPlan was however impacted by their competing medical conditions, other life priorities and socioeconomic context. (2) MyDiabetesPlan emphasized to clinicians a patient-centred approach that helped patients assume greater ownership for their care. Clinicians’ use of MyDiabetesPlan was impacted by pre-existing clinical tools/workplans, workflow, technical issues, clinic administrative logistics and support, and time. How clinicians adapted to these barriers influenced the degree to which MyDiabetesPlan was integrated into care. Conclusions A complexity lens (that considers relationships between multiple components of a complex system) may yield additional insights to optimize integration of PtDA into clinical care. A complexity lens recognizes that shared decision-making does not occur in the vacuum of a clinical dyad (patient and clinician), and will enable us to develop a family of interventions that address the whole process, rather than individual components. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02379078.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document