Evolving oncology provider perspectives on care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18609-e18609
Author(s):  
Divya Ahuja Parikh ◽  
Meera Vimala Ragavan ◽  
Sandy Srinivas ◽  
Sarah Garrigues ◽  
Eben Lloyd Rosenthal ◽  
...  

e18609 Background: The COVID-19 pandemic prompted rapid changes in cancer care delivery. We sought to examine oncology provider perspectives on clinical decisions and care delivery during the pandemic and to compare provider views early versus late in the pandemic. Methods: We invited oncology providers, including attendings, trainees and advanced practice providers, to complete a cross-sectional online survey using a variety of outreach methods including social media (Twitter), email contacts, word of mouth and provider list-serves. We surveyed providers at two time points during the pandemic when the number of COVID-19 cases was rising in the United States, early (March 2020) and late (January 2021). The survey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Chi-squared tests to evaluate differences in early versus late provider responses. Results: A total of 132 providers completed the survey and most were white (n = 73/132, 55%) and younger than 49 years (n = 88/132, 67%). Respondents were attendings in medical, surgical or radiation oncology (n = 61/132, 46%), advanced practice providers (n = 48/132, 36%) and oncology fellows (n = 16/132, 12%) who predominantly practiced in an academic medical center (n = 120/132, 91%). The majority of providers agreed patients with cancer are at higher risk than other patients to be affected by COVID-19 (n = 121/132, 92%). However, there was a significant difference in the proportion of early versus late providers who thought delays in cancer care were needed. Early in the pandemic, providers were more likely to recommend delays in curative surgery or radiation for early-stage cancer (p < 0.001), delays in adjuvant chemotherapy after curative surgery (p = 0.002), or delays in surveillance imaging for metastatic cancer (p < 0.001). The majority of providers early in the pandemic responded that “reducing risk of a complication from a COVID-19 infection to patients with cancer” was the primary reason for recommending delays in care (n = 52/76, 68%). Late in the pandemic, however, providers were more likely to agree that “any practice change would have a negative impact on patient outcomes” (p = 0.003). At both time points, the majority of providers agreed with the need for other care delivery changes, including screening patients for infectious symptoms (n = 128/132, 98%) and the use of telemedicine (n = 114/132, 86%) during the pandemic. Conclusions: We found significant differences in provider perspectives of delays in cancer care early versus late in the pandemic which reflects the swiftly evolving oncology practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Future studies are needed to determine the impact of changes in treatment and care delivery on outcomes for patients with cancer.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1537-1537
Author(s):  
Carolina Bernabe Ramirez ◽  
Ana I. Velazquez Manana ◽  
Coral Olazagasti ◽  
Cristiane Decat Bergerot ◽  
Enrique Soto Perez De Celis ◽  
...  

1537 Background: The severe acute respiratory syndrome 2 (SARS-cov-2) virus causing COVID-19 has brought great challenges to global health services affecting cancer care delivery, outcomes, and increasing the burden in oncology providers (OP). Our study aimed to describe the challenges that OP faced while delivering cancer care in Latin America. Methods: We conducted an international cross-sectional study using an anonymous online survey in Spanish, Portuguese, and English. The questionnaire included 43 multiple choice questions. The sample was stratified by OP who have treated patients with COVID-19 versus those who have not treated patients with COVID-19. Data was analyzed with descriptive statistics and Chi-square tests. Results: A total of 704 OP from 20 Latin American countries completed the survey (77% of 913 who started the survey). Oncologists represented 46% of respondents, followed by 25% surgical-oncologists. Of the respondents, 56% treated patients with COVID-19. A significant proportion of OP reported newly adopting telemedicine during COVID-19 (14% vs 72%, p=0.001). More than half (58%) of OP reported making changes to the treatments they offered to patients with cancer. As shown in the table, caring for patients with COVID-19 significantly influenced practice patterns of OP. Access to specialty services and procedures was significantly reduced: 40% noted significantly decreased or no access to imaging, 20% significantly decreased or no access to biopsies, 65% reported delays in surgical oncology referrals, and 49% in radiation oncology referrals. A vast majority (82%) reported oncologic surgeries were delayed or cancelled, which was heightened among those treating patients with COVID-19 (87% vs 77%, p=0.001). Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly affected the way cancer care is delivered in globally. Although changes to healthcare delivery are necessary as a response to this global crisis, our study highlights the significant disruption and possible undertreatment of patients with cancer in Latin America that results from COVID-19.[Table: see text]


Author(s):  
Patricia A. Ganz ◽  
Michael J. Hassett ◽  
David C. Miller

Herein, both the rationale and scope of current initiatives aimed at improving the quality of cancer care delivery in the United States are described. First, we discuss a recent report from the Institute of Medicine that issued a strong call for both the development of quality measures in oncology and implementation of a learning health care system in which data and experience from clinical practice can inform continuous improvements in cancer care. Second, we review the multiple, diverse initiatives that are underway to identify, test, and validate quality measures for the entire spectrum of cancer care. Finally, we discuss regional quality improvement collaboratives as one successful approach to creating a cycle of quality measurement, identification of best practices, and implementation of changes in practice patterns that ultimately yield improved care and outcomes for patients with cancer.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 2043-2054 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannah R Abrams ◽  
Sienna Durbin ◽  
Cher X Huang ◽  
Shawn F Johnson ◽  
Rahul K Nayak ◽  
...  

Abstract Financial toxicity describes the financial burden and distress that can arise for patients, and their family members, as a result of cancer treatment. It includes direct out-of-pocket costs for treatment and indirect costs such as travel, time, and changes to employment that can increase the burden of cancer. While high costs of cancer care have threatened the sustainability of access to care for decades, it is only in the past 10 years that the term “financial toxicity” has been popularized to recognize that the financial burdens of care can be just as important as the physical toxicities traditionally associated with cancer therapy. The past decade has seen a rapid growth in research identifying the prevalence and impact of financial toxicity. Research is now beginning to focus on innovations in screening and care delivery that can mitigate this risk. There is a need to determine the optimal strategy for clinicians and cancer centers to address costs of care in order to minimize financial toxicity, promote access to high value care, and reduce health disparities. We review the evolution of concerns over costs of cancer care, the impact of financial burdens on patients, methods to screen for financial toxicity, proposed solutions, and priorities for future research to identify and address costs that threaten the health and quality of life for many patients with cancer.


Author(s):  
Priscilla O Okunji ◽  
Johnnie Daniel

Background: Patients with myocardial infarction reportedly have different outcomes on discharge according to hospital characteristics. In the present study, we evaluated the differences between urban teaching hospitals (UTH) and non-teaching hospitals (NTH), discharged in 2012. We also investigated on the outcomes. Methods: Sample of 117,808 subjects diagnosed with myocardial infarction were extracted from a nationwide inpatient stay dataset using the International Classification Data, ICD 9 code 41000 in the United States, according to hospital location, size, and teaching status. Results: The analysis of the data showed that more whites were admitted to both teaching and non teaching hospitals with more males (~24%) admitted than their female counterparts. However, blacks were admitted more (~15%) in urban teaching hospitals than medium urban non teaching hospitals. Age difference was noted as well, while age group (60-79 years) were admitted more in UTH, inversely urban non-teaching hospitals admitted more older (80 years or older) age group. A significant difference (~28%) was observed in both hospital categories with UTH admitting more patients of $1.00 - $38,999.00 income group than other income categories. In addition, it was observed that patients with MI stayed more (~5%) for 14 or more days, and charged more especially for income group of $80,000 or above in UTH than NTH. No significant difference was found in the mortality rate for both hospital categories. Conclusion: The overall outcomes showed that the mortality rate between urban teaching and non-teaching hospitals were non significant, though the inpatients MI stayed longer and were charged more in UTH than NTH. The authors call for the study to be replicated with a higher level of statistical measures to ascertain the impact of the variables on the outcomes for a more validated result.


2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 3201-3213
Author(s):  
Kaitlyn Howden ◽  
Camille Glidden ◽  
Razvan G. Romanescu ◽  
Andrew Hatala ◽  
Ian Scott ◽  
...  

We aimed to describe the negative and positive impacts of changes in cancer care delivery due to COVID-19 pandemic for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) in Canada, as well as the correlates of negative impact and their perspectives on optimization of cancer care. We conducted an online, self-administered survey of AYAs with cancer living in Canada between January and February 2021. Multiple logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with a negative impact on cancer care. Of the 805 participants, 173 (21.5%) experienced a negative impact on their cancer care including delays in diagnostic tests (11.9%), cancer treatment (11.4%), and appointments (11.1%). A prior diagnosis of mental or chronic physical health condition, an annual income of <20,000 CAD, ongoing cancer treatment, and province of residence were independently associated with a negative cancer care impact (p-value < 0.05). The majority (n = 767, 95.2%) stated a positive impact of the changes to cancer care delivery, including the implementation of virtual healthcare visits (n = 601, 74.6%). Pandemic-related changes in cancer care delivery have unfavorably and favorably influenced AYAs with cancer. Interventions to support AYAs who are more vulnerable to the adverse effects of the pandemic, and the thoughtful integration of virtual care into cancer care delivery models is essential.


Author(s):  
Olaide Oluwole-Sangoseni ◽  
Michelle Jenkins-Unterberg

Background: Attempts to address health and health care disparities in the United States have led to a renewed focus on the training of healthcare professionals including physical therapists. Current health care policies emphasize culturally competent care as a means of promoting equity in care delivery by health care professionals. Experts agree that cultural insensitivity has a negative association with health professionals’ ability to provide quality care. Objective: To evaluate the cultural awareness and sensitivity of physical therapy (PT) students in a didactic curriculum aimed to increase cultural awareness. Methods: Using the Multicultural Sensitivity Scale (MSS), a cross-sectional survey was conducted to assess cultural sensitivity among three groups of students, (N = 139) from a doctor of physical therapy (DPT) program at a liberal arts university in Saint Louis, MO. Results: Response rate was 76.3%. Participants (n=100) were students in first (DPT1, n=36), third (DPT3, n=36), and sixth (DPT6, n=28) year of the program. Mean ranked MSS score was DPT1 = 45.53, DPT3 = 46.60 DPT6 = 61.91. Kruskal-Wallis analysis of the mean ranked scores showed a significant difference among three groups, H = 6.05 (2, N=100), p ≤ .05. Discussion: Students who have completed the cultural awareness curriculum, and undergone clinical experiences rated themselves higher on the cultural sensitivity/awareness. Results provide initial evidence that experiential learning opportunities may help PT students to more effectively integrate knowledge from classroom activities designed to facilitate cultural competence.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (8_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8-8
Author(s):  
Aaron Philip Mitchell

8 Background: The rising cost of cancer drugs may make treatment unaffordable for some patients. Patients often rely on drug manufacturer-administered Pharmaceutical Assistance Programs (PAPs) to obtain drugs at reduced or no cost. The overall impact of PAPs on cancer care delivery is unknown. Methods: We identified all patients obtaining cancer drugs across an academically affiliated, integrated health system in the state of North Carolina during 2014. The proportion of patients receiving PAP assistance, and the retail value of the assistance, were quantified for each oncology drug. Cancer drugs were analyzed with respect to route of administration. Results: 215 unique patients submitted a total of 478 successful PAP requests for cancer drugs. The majority of the retail value of drugs obtained was for oral cancer drugs, particularly targeted therapies including tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Among all cancer patients who received medical treatment, 5.5% required PAP assistance, whereas 10.6% receiving an oral agent required PAP assistance (Table). The proportion receiving PAP assistance varied substantially by drug, ranging from <1% of patients (e.g., carboplatin, methotrexate) to 50% of patients (e.g., ponatinib, temsirolimus). Patients obtained a total of $1,556,575 of imatinib and $1,449,633 of dasatinib, which were the two drugs with the highest aggregate retail value. 40% of PAP-utilizing patients were uninsured, 26% had Medicaid coverage, 20% had Medicare coverage, and 14% were commercially insured. Conclusions: A substantial proportion of patients with cancer receive private charitable assistance through PAPs in order to obtain standard-of-care treatments. In particular, a disproportionate share of patients treated with orally-available cancer drugs require PAP assistance. This includes patients with federal and private insurance, suggesting an inability of patients to meet cost-sharing requirements. [Table: see text]


2019 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 912-920 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manali Patel ◽  
Nevedal Andrea ◽  
Bhattacharya Jay ◽  
Tumaini R. Coker

1999 ◽  
Vol 17 (8) ◽  
pp. 2614-2614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeanne S. Mandelblatt ◽  
Patricia A. Ganz ◽  
Katherine L. Kahn

ABSTRACT: Cancer is an important disease, and health care services have the potential to improve the quality and quantity of life for cancer patients. The delivery of these services also has recently been well codified. Given this framework, cancer care presents a unique opportunity for clinicians to develop and test outcome measures across diverse practice settings. Recently, the Institute of Medicine released a report reviewing the quality of cancer care in the United States and called for further development and monitoring of quality indicators. Thus, as we move into the 21st century, professional and regulatory agencies will be seeking to expand process measures and develop and validate outcomes-oriented measures for cancer and other diseases. For such measures to be clinically relevant and feasible, it is key that the oncology community take an active leadership role in this process. To set the stage for such activities, this article first reviews broad methodologic concerns involved in selecting measures of the quality of care, using breast cancer to exemplify key issues. We then use the case of breast cancer to review the different phases of cancer care and provide examples of phase-specific measures that, after careful operationalization, testing, and validation, could be used as the basis of an agenda for measuring the quality of breast cancer care in oncology practice. The diffusion of process and outcome measures into practice; the practicality, reliability, and validity of these measures; and the impact that these indicators have on practice patterns and the health of populations will be key to evaluating the success of such quality-of-care paradigms. Ultimately, improved quality of care should translate into morbidity and mortality reductions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document