Learnings from a multiphase, mixed-methods lung cancer quality initiative in U.S. community cancer centers.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 254-254
Author(s):  
Matthew Smeltzer ◽  
Percy Lee ◽  
Joseph Kim ◽  
David R. Spigel ◽  
Brendon Matthew Stiles ◽  
...  

254 Background: Quality improvement (QI) in cancer care delivery requires understanding the setting, clearly defining problem(s), and identifying targeted solutions. The Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) conducted a national project to identify and provide guidance on key issues in care for patients with stage III/IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We report the problems and solutions identified after a mixed-methods baseline data evaluation. Methods: The multi-phase ACCC QI initiative was guided by an expert steering committee. A request for applications was advertised to all ACCC programs, with committee members ranking each site in pre-specified categories (ex., replicability, practice champion engagement). After selection of sites, baseline data assessed programs’ patient populations, current care delivery practices, processes of care, and biomarker testing rates. A full-day workshop was conducted with multidisciplinary team members and expert faculty to review baseline data, refine problem statements, and identify site-specific QI solutions. Results: The 6 participating US sites were regionally diverse with a rural/urban mix. In baseline data, median patient ages were 65-72 years and patients treated were 50% stage III/50% stage IV. Biomarker testing practices, use of multidisciplinary tumor board, and clinical care pathways varied across sites. Five key QI areas were identified: 1.Management of immune related adverse events (irAE), 2.Biomarker testing, 3.Emergency visit management (EVM), 4.Access to clinical trials, and 5.Smoking cessation. Two sites identified problems with irAE management during immunotherapy (IT). The first identified needs for proactive symptom identification, assessment, and management. Solutions included: 1. a patient questionnaire to identify early signs of irAEs and 2. pilot testing a nurse-administered questionnaire. A second site identified that front-line clinicians may not be properly identifying possible irAEs. Solutions included: 1. form an IT toxicity working group and 2. educate front-line clinicians about irAEs. Two sites focused on biomarker testing. The first problem identified was inefficient tracking of testing results. Solutions were: 1. assign a nurse navigator to track, enter, and communicate test results and 2. proactively coordinate appointments for patients with positive test results. The second site identified delayed care when inadequate tissue was obtained. Solutions included: 1. pathology-driven reflex testing and 2. liquid biopsy order at diagnosis. Similar problems/solutions were developed for EVM, clinical trial access, and smoking cessation. Conclusions: Challenges in lung cancer care delivery can be identified and addressed using an intentional QI approach. Clearly defining the problem and identifying potential solution(s) are critical steps and should occur before implementation.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (8_suppl) ◽  
pp. 29-29
Author(s):  
Catherine R. Fedorenko ◽  
Karma L. Kreizenbeck ◽  
Laura Panattoni ◽  
Julia Rose Walker ◽  
Cara L. McDermott ◽  
...  

29 Background: Cancer care costs are rising, creating concerns about affordability. As a result, delivery systems are creating alternative payment structures to lower costs while maintaining or improving quality. As cancer care delivery often involves multiple provider systems, measuring cost may be difficult. In response, using commercial insurance claims linked to cancer registry records, we constructed broadly applicable, reproducible, clinically relevant episodes to measure costs. Methods: Cancer registry records for patients diagnosed in Western Washington from January 2007-June 2016 were linked with claims from two regional commercial insurers. Patients are age 18+, diagnosed with breast, colorectal (CRC), or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and enrolled with a single insurance plan. With oncologist input, we constructed three care phases: diagnosis (30 days before diagnosis to first treatment), initial treatment (first treatment through first 4 month treatment gap), and end of life (last 30 days). Costs include all claims paid within the phase (2016 inflation adjusted). Supportive care includes colony-stimulating factors, blood transfusions, antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, and antiemetics. Results: This study included 8,727 patients at diagnosis, 7,686 during treatment, and 1,736 at end of life. Diagnosis phase averaged 54 days and cost $6,936 (SD $11,761, median $4,021). Treatment averaged 126 days, with costs of $61,148 (SD $75,432, median $35,750). Average end-of-life costs were $15,829 (SD $30,222, median $2,347). The table below provides an example of the variation in costs during the treatment phase using local-stage tumors. Conclusions: Clinically relevant episodes of care and cost measures can be constructed using claims-registry data. This allows for identification of high-cost care categories and areas with large-cost variability, which may be helpful when designing value-based reimbursement programs or identifying areas for potential cost-reduction.[Table: see text]


Author(s):  
Chiara Acquati ◽  
Tzuan A. Chen ◽  
Isabel Martinez Leal ◽  
Shahnjayla K. Connors ◽  
Arooba A. Haq ◽  
...  

The COVID-19 pandemic has had critical consequences for cancer care delivery, including altered treatment protocols and delayed services that may affect patients’ quality of life and long-term survival. Breast cancer patients from minoritized racial and ethnic groups already experience worse outcomes, which may have been exacerbated by treatment delays and social determinants of health (SDoH). This protocol details a mixed-methods study aimed at comparing cancer care disruption among a diverse sample of women (non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black/African American, and Hispanic/Latina) and assessing how proximal, intermediate, and distal SDoH differentially contribute to care continuity and health-related quality of life. An embedded mixed-methods design will be implemented. Eligible participants will complete an online survey, followed by a semi-structured interview (with a subset of participants) to further understand factors that influence continuity of care, treatment decision-making, and self-reported engagement. The study will identify potentially modifiable factors to inform future models of care delivery and improve care transitions. These data will provide the necessary evidence to inform whether a subsequent, multilevel intervention is warranted to improve quality of care delivery in the COVID-19 aftermath. Additionally, results can be used to identify ways to leverage existing social resources to help manage and support patients’ outcomes.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18386-e18386
Author(s):  
Emily Miller Ray ◽  
Sharon Peacock Hinton ◽  
Katherine Elizabeth Reeder-Hayes

e18386 Background: Advanced lung cancer (ALC) is a symptomatic disease that is often diagnosed in the context of hospitalization. The index hospitalization may be a window of opportunity to improve cancer care delivery. We aimed to define the frequency of ALC diagnosis associated with hospitalization and the relationship to subsequent cancer care and readmissions. Methods: We identified patients in the SEER-Medicare database with: ALC (stage IIIB-IV non-small cell or small cell), diagnosed 2007 to 2013; with continuous enrollment in Medicare from 6 months prior to lung cancer diagnosis through death or 12/2014; and an index hospitalization within 7 days of their ALC diagnosis. Our primary outcomes of interest were 30-day re-hospitalization and emergency department (ED) use. We examined: utilization of services during index hospitalization, including intensive care and oncology or palliative care consultation; discharge destination; receipt of systemic therapy; and hospice enrollment. Results: Fifty-four percent (n = 28,976) of ALC patients had an index hospitalization, with 90% of those having their cancer diagnosed while hospitalized. During their index hospitalization, 16% had oncology consultation, and 6% had palliative care (PC) consultation. Thirty-three percent were in the intensive care unit. At discharge, 59% returned home, 8% died, and 11% went to hospice. Of those who survived to discharge, 69% later returned to the ED or were re-hospitalized, with 49% of re-hospitalizations and 35% of ED visits occurring within 30 days of the index hospitalization. Thirty-five percent of these patients eventually received systemic treatment for their cancer. By 180 days post-discharge, 77% had enrolled in hospice with a median of 10 days on hospice care. Conclusions: Newly diagnosed ALC patients are high risk for acute care utilization, and many patients experience a return to the hospital early in their cancer trajectory. These patients may benefit from additional health system support prior to hospital discharge to help prevent high-cost, low-value healthcare utilization.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9067-9067
Author(s):  
Kathryn Finch Mileham ◽  
Upal Kunal Basu Roy ◽  
Suanna Steeby Bruinooge ◽  
Janet Freeman-Daily ◽  
Edward B. Garon ◽  
...  

9067 Background: With rapid advancements in biomarker testing informing lung cancer treatment decisions, clinicians are challenged to maintain knowledge of who, what and when to test and how to treat based on test results. An ASCO taskforce including representatives from the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable and patient advocates conducted a study to assess biomarker testing and treatment practices for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) among U.S. oncologists. Methods: A survey was sent to 2374 ASCO members – lung cancer specialists and general oncologists. Eligibility required treating ≥1 lung cancer patient/month. Proportions were estimated across groups and compared using chi-square tests. Results: 170 responses were analyzed. 59% of respondents work at an academic center (i.e., have a fellowship program), while 41% work at a community (non-academic hospital/health system/private practice). Nearly all (98%) believe biomarker results should be received within 1 or 2 weeks of ordering, yet 37% wait an average of 3 or 4 weeks for results. Of respondents who usually wait 3 or 4 weeks, 37% initiate a non-targeted systemic treatment while waiting. Respondents from community practices were more likely to initiate non-targeted systemic treatment if results were not available after 2 weeks (59% compared to 40% of academic respondents; p = 0.013). ). When asked about reasons for not testing, respondents <5 years since training were more likely to report that delaying treatment while waiting for results was always/often a concern compared to those >6 years from training (41% vs 19%). Respondents reported high testing rates in both non-squamous and squamous aNSCLC. Roughly equal representation of generalists/specialists and academic/community respondents helps mitigate potential concerns about external validity. Conclusions: Respondents indicated that treatment decisions are impacted by delays in biomarker test results. Clinicians should be informed about when it is safe and appropriate to defer treatment while biomarker testing is pending. Respondents suggest that diagnostic biomarker testing companies should strive to expedite results.[Table: see text]


2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Clauser ◽  
Maureen Johnson ◽  
Donna M O'Brien ◽  
Joy M. Beveridge ◽  
Mary L. Fennell ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement 2) ◽  
pp. 84s-84s
Author(s):  
M. Cedzyńska ◽  
M. Marta ◽  
P. Koczkodaj ◽  
I. Przepiorka

Background: Despite the fact that smoking has been linked not only to the development of cancer, but also to prognosis upon diagnosis and risk of death during treatment, many cancer patients continue to smoke. Quitting smoking can be beneficial also after cancer diagnosis, regardless of stage and prognosis. Those benefits are: improved survival outcomes, reduced risk of recurrence and second primary formation, increase treatment response to chemo and radiotherapy, reduced treatment-related complications, better self-reported quality of life related to disease and treatment than among smokers and less pain. The evidence is strong enough to incorporate tobacco dependence treatment into routine cancer care, but in majority of countries in central and eastern Europe (CEE) there are no actions taken to help cancer patients to quit smoking. Aim: To identify main barriers in providing smoking cessation to cancer patients in central and eastern Europe. Methods: Data were collected from participants of Workshop on Tobacco Control and Cessation organized by Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Poland and the National Cancer Institute, US. Following countries provided detailed data: Armenia, Georgia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Kirgizstan, Lithuania, Poland, Macedonia, Serbia. The areas that were investigated: guidelines on smoking cessation dedicated to cancer patients, quit smoking programs for cancer patients, existing literature on barriers for delivery smoking cessation advice and personal opinion of tobacco control experts regarding those barriers. Results: I. Guidelines for smoking cessation among cancer patients have been published only in one country (Serbia) out of nine analyzed countries of the region. II. Programs on smoking cessation dedicated to cancer patients were implemented only in two countries: 1: Poland. Pilot program within National Health Program in 2015 (3 months in cancer centers in two cities). 2: Hungary. In 2012 pilot project. In 2017 National Institute for Pulmonology run 3 workshops on smoking cessation for cancer nurses. III. There is no literature on barriers in incorporating smoking cessation into cancer care in the CEE region. IV. Experts opinions are consistent with worldwide literature findings-the main barriers are lack of knowledge, lack of training, overloading with work focused on diagnosis and cancer treatment, difficulties in implementing systemic changes. Conclusion: There is a strong need to take action in central and eastern Europe to engage oncologists and other cancer healthcare providers into smoking cessation. It is crucial to increase the knowledge on benefits of quitting smoking for cancer patients' health and results of cancer treatment. Sustainable change can be achieved by publishing guidelines and implementing training programs that address the attitudes and beliefs. Implementing systemic changes within cancer centers might be required to improve survival and quality of life of cancer patients in central and eastern European region.


2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (S1) ◽  
pp. 27-42
Author(s):  
Luh Komang Mela Dewi ◽  
Laureline Gatellier ◽  
Kanaga Sabapathy ◽  
C S Pramesh ◽  
Min Dai ◽  
...  

Objective: To describe how the Asian National Cancer Centers Alliance (ANCCA) members preserve high standards of care for cancer patients while battling the COVID-19 pandemic and to propose new strategies in the Asian Cancer Centers’ preparedness to future pandemics. Methods: A 41-question-based survey was developed using an online survey tool and conducted among 15 major Asian National Cancer Centers, including 13 ANCCA members. Direct interviews of several specialists were conducted subsequently to obtain additional answers to key questions that emerged during the survey analysis. Result: Institution/country-specific results provided a strong insight on the diverse ways of managing the pandemic around Asia, while maintaining well-balanced cancer care. Pragmatic strategies were put in place in each NCC hospital, including zoning and intensive triage depending on the pandemic impact. Distancing strategies and telemedicine were implemented in different capacity depending on the national healthcare system. In addition, there was a diverse impact on the manpower and financial aspect of cancer care across surveyed NCCs relating to magnitude of the pandemic impact on the country. Conclusion: The priorities nevertheless remain on maintaining cancer care delivery while protecting both patients and health care workers from the risk of COVID-19 infection. The role of a think-tank such as ANCCA to help share experiences in a timely manner can enhance preparedness in future pandemic scenarios.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document