scholarly journals Care for a Patient With Cancer As a Project: Management of Complex Task Interdependence in Cancer Care Delivery

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (11) ◽  
pp. 1101-1113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia R. Trosman ◽  
Ruth C. Carlos ◽  
Melissa A. Simon ◽  
Debra L. Madden ◽  
William J. Gradishar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Project Management ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Task Interdependence ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Future Patient

Cancer care is highly complex and suffers from fragmentation and lack of coordination across provider specialties and clinical domains. As a result, patients often find that they must coordinate care on their own. Coordinated delivery teams may address these challenges and improve quality of cancer care. Task interdependence is a core principle of rigorous teamwork and is essential to addressing the complexity of cancer care, which is highly interdependent across specialties and modalities. We examined challenges faced by a patient with early-stage breast cancer that resulted from difficulties in understanding and managing task interdependence across clinical domains involved in this patient’s care. We used team science supported by the project management discipline to discuss how various task interdependence aspects can be recognized, deliberately designed, and systematically managed to prevent care breakdowns. This case highlights how effective task interdependence management facilitated by project management methods could markedly improve the course of a patient’s care. This work informs efforts of cancer centers and practices to redesign cancer care delivery through innovative, practical, and patient-centered approaches to management of task interdependence in cancer care. Future patient-reported outcomes research will help to determine optimal ways to engage patients, including those who are medically underserved, in managing task interdependence in their own care.

The Employers Centers of Excellence in Cancer Care: A collaboration of employers and providers to improve cancer care.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 141-141
Author(s):  
Manali I. Patel ◽  
Rachel V Lee ◽  
Neil Smithline ◽  
Olivia Ross
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Care ◽  
Development Process ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Centers Of Excellence ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Team Assessment ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Request For Proposal ◽  
Employee Groups

141 Background: Rising costs demand collaborations that lower expenditures and improve patients’ experiences and outcomes. We created a novel employer-provider collaboration to enhance value-based cancer care. Methods: We created an Employers Center of Excellence Network (ECEN) for the Pacific Business Group on Health (PBGH) employee groups. The ECEN provides competitive bundled rates that include travel for in-person patient consultation, advanced assessment and treatment by multidisciplinary case reviews, and ongoing specialized treatment care coordination and follow-up on a routine basis with the local care team.The ECEN development process included: focus groups, expert panel development, and a rigorous selection process. A Request for Proposal was publicized to all west coast NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers. After interviews, selected sites were invited to submit a full proposal and a few were selected for a site visit.. In addition to overall cancer care excellence, a key criterion for acceptance was the demonstrated willingness and ability of the center to provide long-term support for the patient and home oncologist in the patient’s home market, so that the center’s expertise and support would be ongoing for the duration of the cancer treatment. Results: Of 8 sites that participated in team-assessment interviews, 4 were selected to submit a full proposal, 3 selected for in-person visits, and 1 selected to participate. In January 2019, we plan to implement a 6-month pilot with a PBGH employer group and the provider site to evaluate the ECEN's feasibility and effects on quality, patient-reported outcomes, and costs. Conclusions: Our novel employer-provider collaboration aims to improve cancer care delivery by providing planned and supported NCI-designated cancer care in close collaboration with the home oncologist. We plan to expand the ECEN development process across the US to develop a network of collaborating providers and employers to improve patient-centered, value-based cancer care.

Enhancing community capacity to improve cancer care delivery and the effect on patient-reported outcomes, healthcare utilization and total costs of care.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6522-6522
Author(s):  
Manali I. Patel ◽  
David Ramirez ◽  
Richy Agajanian ◽  
Hilda H. Agajanian ◽  
Jay Bhattacharya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Health Plan ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Healthcare Use ◽  
Difference In Difference ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Over Time

6522 Background: To curb rising expenditures and improve patient-reported outcomes (PROs), we designed an intervention with patient, caregiver, provider, and payer input. The intervention is based on prior work using a lay health worker (LHW) to assess advanced cancer patients' symptoms. In this study, we trained the LHW to refer patients to palliative care and/or behavioral health services in response to positive assessments and expanded the intervention to all cancer stages. We implemented the intervention with a health plan and a community oncology group serving elderly racially/ethnically diverse patients to test the effect on symptoms, healthcare use, and total costs. Methods: We enrolled all newly diagnosed health plan beneficiaries with solid and hematologic malignancies from 10/2016 to 11/2017 and compared outcomes to all cancer patients diagnosed in the year prior to the intervention (control arm). Our primary outcome was change in patient-reported symptoms using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale and Personal Health Questionnaire-9 at baseline, 6 and 12 months post-enrollment. Secondarily, we compared 12 month healthcare use and costs. All generalized linear regression models were adjusted for age, stage, comorbidities, diagnosis, and follow-up. Results: 425 patients were in the intervention; 407 in the control. In both groups, mean age was 79 years; 48% were non-Hispanic White, 43% Hispanic, 3% Black, 6% Asian/Pacific Islander; 60% had advanced stages; 28% had breast, 28% had gastrointestinal, and 10% had thoracic cancers. Intervention patients had significantly decreased symptom burden over time as compared with the control (Mean Difference: intervention (-0.77 +/- 0.28 p = 0.01) vs. control: (0.45 +/- 0.25 p = 0.06)); difference in difference: (-0.68 +/- 0.25 p = 0.007)). Depression scores also significantly decreased over time among intervention patients as compared with the control (Mean Difference: intervention (-1.10 +/- 0.38 p = 0.04)) vs control: (1.21 +/- 0.34 p = 0.01); (difference in difference: -2.03 +/- 0.3 p < 0.001)). As compared to the control arm, intervention patients had lower inpatient admissions (0.7 vs. 0.5 p = 0.01) and emergency department visits per thousand patients per year (0.6 vs. 0.42 p = 0.02), and lower median total healthcare costs ($32,270 versus $25,512 p = 0.01). Conclusions: An LHW intervention significantly improved patient-reported outcomes and the value of cancer care delivery and may be a solution to improve burdensome and costly care for patients.

Nurse, oncologist, and patient impressions of electronic symptom monitoring via patient-reported outcomes in community oncology practices: Qualitative results from the U.S. national PRO-TECT trial (AFT-39, NCT03249090).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7044-7044
Author(s):  
Ethan M. Basch ◽  
Randall Teal ◽  
Amylou C. Dueck ◽  
Jennifer Jansen ◽  
Sydney Henson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Routine Care ◽  
Office Visits ◽  
Symptom Monitoring ◽  
Community Oncology ◽  
Patient Reported

7044 Background: There is growing interest to implement electronic patient-reported outcomes in oncology practices for symptom monitoring. It is not well known what nurse, physician, and patient impressions of benefits, acceptability, and challenges are in routine care use. Methods: PRO-TECT is an ongoing U.S. national trial including 26 community oncology practices across 15 states that implemented PRO symptom monitoring [NCT03249090]. Patients complete weekly PROs between visits, nurses receive alerts for severe/worsening symptoms, and oncologists review PROs at office visits. Interviews were conducted with 147 stakeholders including nurses (N = 46), oncologists (N = 27), data managers (N = 15), and patients (N = 59). Each stakeholder group had different interview guides with overlapping topics to explore experiences with the PRO system. Interviews lasted 15-60 minutes, were digitally recorded, transcribed, and entered into a qualitative analysis software program. A codebook was developed from the research questions, interview guides, and discussions with the project team. Standardized coding methods were applied, with transcripts double coded for thematic analysis. Feedback surveys were also completed by nurses (N = 57), oncologists (N = 38), and patients (N = 435). Results: Key benefits perceived across stakeholder groups included increased patient self-awareness of symptoms; improved direct communication of patients with care teams; more open and honest conveying of symptom experiences; ability to track symptoms over time; and increased involvement of patients in their own care. Most stakeholders felt PRO symptom monitoring had a positive impact on quality of care delivery, and believed benefits of PROs outweighed necessary staff efforts. Challenges included additional work by nurses to review and respond to alerts, staff turnover requiring retraining, and limited time of oncologists. In the survey, 39/56 (70%) nurses felt the PRO system improved quality of care; 27/33 (82%) oncologists noted PROs were useful for team discussions and care delivery; and 320/434 (74%) patients agreed that weekly PRO reporting improved discussions with their care team. Conclusions: Clinicians and patients perceived weekly PRO symptom monitoring between visits to be valuable despite added staff effort. Results of additional analyses are forthcoming. Clinical trial information: NCT03249090 .

The impact of telemedicine on patient-reported outcomes in urologic oncology.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14154-e14154
Author(s):  
Adam John Gadzinski ◽  
Isabelle O. Abarro ◽  
Blair Stewart ◽  
John L. Gore
Keyword(s):  
Travel Time ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Testis Cancer ◽  
Urologic Oncology ◽  
Time Costs ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Travel Burden

e14154 Background: Nearly 20% of Americans live in rural communities. These individuals face barriers to accessing cancer care, including prevalent poverty and substantial travel burden to seeing cancer providers. We aimed to assess the impact of a rurally focused telemedicine program on patient outcomes in our urologic oncology outpatient clinic. Methods: We prospectively identified patients from rural Washington State, or who lived outside Washington, with a known or suspected urological malignancy being evaluated at the University of Washington Urology Clinic via an in person clinic or a telemedicine appointment. Patients were invited to complete a post-visit survey that assessed satisfaction, travel time, costs, and work absenteeism. We compared patient-reported outcomes between those seen as in-person versus telemedicine visits. Results: We invited 291 eligible patients from June 2019 – February 2020 to participate, 140 patients (48%) completed the survey. One-hundred and thirty-three patients had in person visits and 7 had telemedicine visits. Median age was 68, male 86%, and 69% Caucasian. Eighty-seven patients (62%) were from rural Washington; the remainder resided out-of-state. Patients were being evaluated for prostate cancer (57%), kidney cancer (18%), urothelial cancer (24%), and testis cancer (1%). Patient-reported outcomes are displayed in Table. Seventeen patients coming for in-person visits (13%) paid ≥ $1000 in total travel costs. No differences were noted in patient satisfaction. Conclusions: Patients traveling to our clinic from out-of-state and rural Washington incur significant travel time, costs, and time away from work to receive outpatient urologic cancer care. Telemedicine provides a medium for cancer care delivery that eliminates the significant travel burden associated with in person clinic appointments. [Table: see text]

The impact of telemedicine on patient-reported outcomes in urologic oncology.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 200-200
Author(s):  
Adam John Gadzinski ◽  
Isabelle O. Abarro ◽  
Blair Stewart ◽  
John L. Gore
Keyword(s):  
Travel Time ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Testis Cancer ◽  
Urologic Oncology ◽  
Time Costs ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Travel Burden

200 Background: Nearly 20% of Americans live in rural communities. These individuals face barriers to accessing cancer care, including prevalent poverty and substantial travel burden to seeing cancer providers. We aimed to assess the impact of a rurally focused telemedicine program on patient outcomes in our urologic oncology outpatient clinic. Methods: We prospectively identified patients from rural Washington State, or who lived outside Washington, with a known or suspected urological malignancy being evaluated at the University of Washington Urology Clinic via an in person clinic or a telemedicine appointment. Patients were invited to complete a post-visit survey that assessed satisfaction, travel time, costs, and work absenteeism. We compared patient-reported outcomes between those seen as in-person versus telemedicine visits. Results: We invited 1453 eligible patients from August 2019–July 2020 to participate; 615 patients (42%) completed the survey. 198 patients had in person visits and 417 had telemedicine visits. Median age was 68, 89% were male, and 73% were white. 525 patients (85%) were from Washington; the remainder resided out-of-state. Patients were being evaluated for prostate cancer (62%), kidney cancer (14%), urothelial cancer (22%), and testis cancer (2%). Patient-reported outcomes are displayed in Table. Twenty-two patients coming for in-person visits (11%) paid ≥ $1000 in total travel costs. No differences were noted in patient satisfaction between in-person and telemedicine visit types. Conclusions: Patients traveling to our clinic from out-of-state and rural Washington incur significant travel time, costs, and time away from work to receive outpatient urologic cancer care. Telemedicine provides a medium for cancer care delivery that eliminates the significant travel burden associated with in-person clinic appointments. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Patient-Reported Quality of Supportive Care Among Patients With Colorectal Cancer in the Veterans Affairs Health Care System

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (8) ◽  
pp. 809-815 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle van Ryn ◽  
Sean M. Phelan ◽  
Neeraj K. Arora ◽  
David A. Haggstrom ◽  
George L. Jackson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Supportive Care ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Quality Measurement ◽  
Veterans Affairs ◽  
Health Administration ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Impact

Purpose High-quality supportive care is an essential component of comprehensive cancer care. We implemented a patient-centered quality of cancer care survey to examine and identify predictors of quality of supportive care for bowel problems, pain, fatigue, depression, and other symptoms among 1,109 patients with colorectal cancer. Patients and Methods Patients with new diagnosis of colorectal cancer at any Veterans Health Administration medical center nationwide in 2008 were ascertained through the Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry and sent questionnaires assessing a variety of aspects of patient-centered cancer care. We received questionnaires from 63% of eligible patients (N = 1,109). Descriptive analyses characterizing patient experiences with supportive care and binary logistic regression models were used to examine predictors of receipt of help wanted for each of the five symptom categories. Results There were significant gaps in patient-centered quality of supportive care, beginning with symptom assessment. In multivariable modeling, the impact of clinical factors and patient race on odds of receiving wanted help varied by symptom. Coordination of care quality predicted receipt of wanted help for all symptoms, independent of patient demographic or clinical characteristics. Conclusion This study revealed substantial gaps in patient-centered quality of care, difficult to characterize through quality measurement relying on medical record review alone. It established the feasibility of collecting patient-reported quality measures. Improving quality measurement of supportive care and implementing patient-reported outcomes in quality-measurement systems are high priorities for improving the processes and outcomes of care for patients with cancer.

scholarly journals Using Patient-Reported Outcomes to Assess Healthcare Quality: Toward Better Measurement of Patient-Centered Care in Cardiovascular Disease

2021 ◽  
pp. e1-e9
Author(s):  
Raul Angel Garcia ◽  
John A Spertus
Keyword(s):  
Health Status ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Health Management ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Healthcare Quality ◽  
Patient Centered Care ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Centered Care

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are elicited directly from patients so they can describe their overall health status, including their symptoms, function, and quality of life. While commonly used as end points in clinical trials, PROs can play an important role in routine clinical care, population health management, and as a means for quantifying the quality of patient care. In this review, we propose that PROs be used to improve patient-centered care in the treatment of cardiovascular diseases given their importance to patients and society and their ability to improve doctor- provider communication. Furthermore, given the current variability in patients’ health status across different clinics and the fact that PROs can be improved by titrating therapy, we contend that PROs have a key opportunity to serve as measures of healthcare quality.

scholarly journals Patient-Reported Outcomes from Heart Failure Patients Participating in the Future Patient Telerehabilitation Program: Data From the Intervention Arm of a Randomized Controlled Trial (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cathrine Skov Schacksen ◽  
Anne-Kirstine Dyrvig ◽  
Nanna Celina Henneberg ◽  
Josefine Dam Gade ◽  
Helle Spindler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Heart Failure ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Heart Failure Patients ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Future ◽  
One Year ◽  
Future Patient

BACKGROUND More than 37 million people throughout the world are diagnosed with heart failure that is a growing burden on the health sector. Cardiac rehabilitation aims to improve patients’ recovery, functional capacity, psychosocial well-being, and health-related quality of life. However, cardiac rehabilitation programs have poor compliance and adherence. Telerehabilitation may be a solution to overcome some of these challenges to cardiac rehabilitation and making it more individualized. As part of the Future Patient Telerehabilitation program, a digital toolbox with the aim of enabling HF patients to monitor and evaluate their own current status has been developed and tested via data from a questionnaire (patient reported outcomes) that the patient has answered every other week (patient -reported outcomes) for one year. OBJECTIVE The aim of this sub-study is to evaluate the changes in quality of life and well-being for heart failure patients participating in the FPT Program over the course of one year. METHODS In total, 140 patients were enrolled in the Future Patient Telerehabilitation program and randomized into either the telerehabilitation group (n=70) or the control group (n=70). The patients in the telerehabilitation group answered patient reported outcomes that consisted of three components: Questions regarding the patients’ sleep patterns using the Spiegel Sleep Questionnaire. Measurements of physical limitations, symptoms, self-efficacy, social interaction and quality of life were assessed using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ). In addition, five additional questions regarding psychological well-being were developed by the research group. Of the 70 patients in the TR group, 56 answered the PRO questionnaire and completed the program, and it is these 56 patients who constitute the population for this study. RESULTS The changes in scores during one year of the study were examined using one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with a hypothesized median being 0. There were statistically significant differences in the scores in most of the slopes and intersections of the scores from the dimensions from the KCCQ and in the slopes of the patients’ overall well-being (p < 0.05). Only one dimension, the symptom stability, showed a decrease in scores over a one-year period. CONCLUSIONS The overall well-being of heart failure patients increased during one year of participating in a telerehabilitation program. There was a statistically significant increase in clinical and social well-being and quality of life during the one-year intervention period. The increase in the scores over time may indicate that the patients became more aware of their own symptoms and became better equipped to cope with disease in their everyday lives. These results suggest that patient-reported-outcome questionnaires may be used as a tool for patients in a telerehabilitation program that can both monitor and guide the patients in mastering their own symptoms CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03388918; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03388918

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document