Impact of a Dedicated Cancer Urgent Care Center on Acute Care Utilization

2021 ◽  
pp. OP.21.00183
Author(s):  
Bonnie E. Gould Rothberg ◽  
Maureen E. Canavan ◽  
Sophia Mun ◽  
Tannaz Sedghi ◽  
Tracy Carafeno ◽  
...  

PURPOSE: Acute care imposes a significant burden on patients and cancer care costs. We examined whether an advanced practice provider-driven, cancer-specific urgent care center embedded within a large tertiary academic center decreased acute care use among oncology patients on active therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a quasi-experimental study anchored around the Oncology Extended Care Clinic (OECC) opening date. We evaluated two parallel 4-month periods: a post-OECC period that followed a 5-month run-in phase, and the identical calendar period 1 year earlier. Our primary outcomes included all emergency department (ED) presentations and hospital admissions during the 3-month window following the index provider visit. We used Poisson models to calculate absolute pre-OECC v post-OECC rate differences. RESULTS: Our cohort included 2,095 patients in the pre-OECC period and 2,188 in the post-OECC period. We identified 32.6 ED visits/100 patients and 41.2 hospitalizations/100 patients in the pre-OECC period, versus 28.2 ED visits/100 patients and 26.1 hospitalizations/100 patients post-OECC. After adjusting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, and practice location, we observed a significant decrease of 4.6 ED visits/100 patients during the post-OECC period (95% CI, –8.92/100 to –0.28/100; P = .04) compared with the pre-OECC period. There was no significant association between the OECC opening and hospitalization rate (rate difference: –3.29 admissions/100 patients; 95% CI, –8.24/100 to 1.67/100; P = .19). CONCLUSION: Establishing a cancer-specific urgent care center was significantly associated with a modest decrease in emergency room utilization but not with hospitalization rate. Barriers included clinic capacity, patient awareness, and physician comfort with advanced practice provider autonomy. Optimizing workflow and standardizing clinical pathways can create benchmarks useful for value-based payments.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 110-110
Author(s):  
Anamika Chaudhuri ◽  
Andrew J. Wagner ◽  
Craig A. Bunnell ◽  
Anne Gross ◽  
Emma Green ◽  
...  

110 Background: Emergency Department (ED) visits and subsequent hospitalizations are a major source of healthcare resource utilization and costs among cancer patients, compromising quality of care and patient satisfaction. Emerging evidence, including OCM and other alternative payment models suggest many of these visits may be preventable and effectively managed in oncology-specific urgent care clinics. Little is known about such care delivery models in the comprehensive cancer care arena. Methods: As part of larger effort to provide better, efficient, timely care to patients, an acute care clinic (ACC), appropriately staffed to provide ancillary services, was set up in an academic hospital outpatient setting with hours of operations 10:30- 8:00 pm to effectively manage patients with cancer-related symptoms. The objective was to change the site of care for patients who would otherwise be seen in the ED and discharged home as well as to potentially decrease the frequency of hospitalization following ED evaluation by providing oncology subspecialized care. A retrospective analysis of 4 months pre- and post-intervention was performed with emergency visits per 1000 visits per month as the primary outcome and subsequent hospitalizations as a secondary outcome. Results: A total of 1593 patients (821 pre-intervention and 772 post-intervention) were included. Preliminary analysis revealed a 7% observed reduction in ED visits (0.25 vs 0.23 visits per month per 1000 visits; p = 0.85) for oncology patients which otherwise would have seen a 12% increase, following the historical trend. Data also suggest more effective avoidance of acute care settings with discharge disposition for patients from ED pre-intervention versus ACC post-intervention being 32% vs 72% home, 67% vs 13% inpatient, 1% vs 6% ED respectively. Conclusions: The creation of an ACC to manage urgent patient visits in an ambulatory setting decreased ED visits and the likelihood of patient admission. Although initial findings suggest improved preliminary outcomes, further analysis is required to make any causal inference on the true impact of ACC intervention for reduction of ED and hospitalizations.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e13517-e13517
Author(s):  
Sadaf Charania ◽  
Judy Devlin ◽  
Edie Brucker ◽  
Shayna Simon ◽  
Christine Hong ◽  
...  

e13517 Background: Emergency Department (ED) utilization by oncology patients accounts for more than 4.5 million visits in the United States annually, leading to hospitalization four times the rate of the general population.1,2 Many ED visits are the result of symptoms related to cancer or cancer treatment that can be managed on an outpatient basis. Unnecessary admissions lead to possible delays in cancer treatment and increased burden on healthcare resources.3 Simmons Acute Care (SAC), an advanced practice provider (APP)-led clinic, was established in August 2020 to provide an alternative model of oncology care to address these issues. Methods: A multidisciplinary team of key stakeholders was formed to develop an action plan. Institutional data was reviewed to identify the timing and volume of ED visits by oncology patients. Clinic hours were set Monday through Friday, 7:00am – 7:00pm, and referrals were made from primary oncology providers. Evidence-based clinical pathways were developed to standardize patient management, and a data collection plan was implemented to measure outcomes. Internal communications to patients and presentations at staff and faculty meetings occurred to inform patients and clinical staff/providers. Results: From August to December 2020, 165 patient visits were completed in SAC, 141 patients discharged home, 14 patients directly admitted to the hospital, and 10 patients transferred to the ED for a higher level of care. Based on data from 2020, the average cost of an ED visit for an oncology patient was $5,500 and increased to $28,500 if the patient is admitted. Patients with hematologic and gastrointestinal malignancies represented approximately 30% of all visits. Gastrointestinal symptoms were the most frequent presenting chief complaint. Conclusions: Supporting oncology patients in the ambulatory setting provided a reduction in admissions and unnecessary ED visits, leading to cost savings/avoidance to the patient and health system. Based on internal cost analyses, there are potential savings of over $2 million to the organization during this 5-month period. Additional studies are underway to assess patient satisfaction, as well as the economic impact for patients. 1. Rui PKK. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2015 emergency department summary tables. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhamcs/web_tables/2015_ed_web_tables.pdf 2. Hong AS, Froehlich T, Clayton Hobbs S, Lee SJC, Halm EA. Impact of a Cancer Urgent Care Clinic on Regional Emergency Department Visits. J Oncol Pract. 2019;15(6):e501-e509. doi:10.1200/JOP.18.00743 3. Roy M, Halbert B, Devlin S, Chiu D, Graue R, Zerillo JA. From metrics to practice: identifying preventable emergency department visits for patients with cancer. Support Care Cancer Off J Multinatl Assoc Support Care Cancer. Published online November 7, 2020. doi:10.1007/s00520-020-05874-3


2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7-7
Author(s):  
Christopher Davella ◽  
Peter Whooley ◽  
Emily Milano ◽  
Brian L. Egleston ◽  
Martin Edelman ◽  
...  

7 Background: Studies suggest that many Emergency Department (ED) visits and hospitalizations for cancer patients may be preventable. CMS has made changes to the hospital outpatient reporting program (OP-35) targeting ED visits and admissions in treatment patients for preventable conditions. Oncologic urgent care centers aim to streamline care for this population. Fox Chase Cancer Center (FCCC) developed an urgent care center called the Direct Referral Unit (DRU) in July 2011. We sought to assess the impact of the DRU on care utilization. Methods: We abstracted visits to our adjacent hospital (Jeanes) ED and the DRU from January 2014-June 2018. Visit rates represent the ratio of visits over the total number of patients with a clinic visit at FCCC per year. ED and DRU visits were associated with both a cancer and visit diagnosis per the International Classification of Disease (ICD). Patient demographics were abstracted. We also analyzed visit charges, inpatient admission and 30-day therapy utilization (chemotherapy, immunotherapy, radiation). Results: A total of 13,210 visits were analyzed including 5,789 ED visits and 7,421 DRU visits. Visits to the Jeanes ED increased over time. The average age of patients at time of first visit was 63 and visits were most common in females and Caucasians. Hispanic and African American (AA) patients were more likely to visit the ED compared to the DRU (OR: 7.54 and 1.30). Patients with GI (27%) and thoracic (15%) malignancies had the most visits. Commercial insurance use was most common (48%) followed by Medicare (34%) and Medicaid (16%). DRU use was most frequent on Mondays (22%), while ED use occurred the most on Sundays (17%). The most common DRU visit diagnoses in order of prevalence were dehydration, nausea/vomiting, abdominal pain, fever, shortness of breath, fatigue, diarrhea, cellulitis/rash, constipation and anemia. Inpatient admission rates were similar between the two settings (p=.8176). Patients on active cancer treatment more frequently presented to the DRU in comparison to the ED (p<.0001). The average charges were $2226.22 for a DRU visit vs. $10,253.44 for an ED visit. Conclusions: The increase in ED visits over time as well the more frequent ED use in Hispanic and AA patients both suggest a need for greater urgent care access. Many of the most common visit diagnoses to the DRU align with CMS’s list of preventable conditions, demonstrating the DRU’s success as a triage center targeting these conditions. DRU visits were associated with considerable cost savings, supporting the use of cancer urgent care centers as a cost-effective method to reduce acute care.


2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 367-369 ◽  
Author(s):  
William S. Pearson ◽  
Guoyu Tao ◽  
Karen Kroeger ◽  
Thomas A. Peterman

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4179-4179
Author(s):  
Shivani Rao ◽  
Nicole K. Yun ◽  
James L. Coggan ◽  
Peter Wu ◽  
Teresa O'Brien ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction In sickle cell disease (SCD), the polymerization of deoxygenated HbS fundamentally alters the structure of the erythrocyte, producing the sickle cell that is characteristic of the disease. Clinical manifestations often perceived in patients suffering from SCD include vaso-occlusion, anemia, and hemolysis. Due to these sequelae, patients frequent the emergency room (ER), urgent care clinic, and hospital. Voxelotor, an oral medication approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2019 for the treatment of SCD, directly targets the pathophysiology of SCD by inhibiting deoxygenated HbS polymerization. Results of the Phase III HOPE trial indicate that the drug can increase hemoglobin levels and reduce markers of hemolysis as well as the incidence of worsening anemia in patients with SCD (Vichinsky et al. N Engl J Med 2019). The COVID-19 pandemic has posed several challenges for patients with SCD in 2020. Amid the pandemic, patients continued to seek out acute medical care, including care in the ER, urgent care clinics, and hospital. The aim of this study was to determine whether utilization of acute medical care differed for patients who received voxelotor before and after therapy in 2020. We also evaluated the utilization of healthcare through telemedicine platforms to facilitate access to novel therapies such as voxelotor for patients with SCD. Methods 13 patients (≥18 years of age as of January 1, 2020) with SCD who had begun treatment with voxelotor between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020 were included in the initial analysis. Six patients were excluded from final analysis: three discontinued treatment due to side effects, one was noncompliant with treatment, and two were lost to follow-up. Acute care utilization, measured by the number of times each patient visited the ER, urgent care clinic, and hospital was compared for each patient in the period six months prior to their first dose of voxelotor and in the period six months after their last dose of the drug in 2020 using paired t-tests and Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank tests. Demographic information and the type of visit at which patients agreed to proceed with voxeletor was recorded for each patient. Simple linear regressions and multiple regressions controlled for covariates, defined as sex, BMI, age, type of insurance coverage, and duration of treatment. Results All seven (100%) patients discussed voxelotor treatment with their provider during a telehealth video visit. In the period before initiating treatment, patients frequented the ER an average of 2.71 (SD=6.75) times. In the six months after their last dose, patients visited the ER less than they had in the period prior to treatment, on average 0.57 (SD=0.79) times. This difference did not achieve statistical significance (p&gt;0.9999). The mean number of visits to the urgent care clinic in the six months before treatment was 2.71 (SD=6.75) compared to 2 (SD=4) in the period after patients' last dose in 2020. This finding was not statistically significant (p&gt;0.9999). Hospitalizations, on average, decreased significantly from 5.14 (SD=2.34) in the six months before starting treatment to 1.57 (SD=0.98) after ending therapy for 2020 (p=0.0015). Covariates did not have an effect on the differences in acute care utilization before treatment and after last treatment in 2020. Conclusions The findings of this study imply that treatment with voxelotor was associated with a decrease in the frequency of hospitalizations for the seven patients analyzed. This finding can potentially be attributed to the efficacy of voxelotor in improving anemia and reducing complications associated with SCD. While the difference between ER visits and urgent care visits before treatment and after the last dose in 2020 did not achieve statistical significance, likely due to small sample size, the data does suggest a reduction in both outcomes. In addition, the observation that all visits in which patient and provider discussed and initiated treatment were virtual support the use of telemedicine technology to improve access to multidisciplinary care and novel therapies for SCD patients. The impact of voxelotor treatment will continue to be assessed in SCD patients at our institution, and more data from clinical encounters will lead to a greater understanding of the efficacy of voxelotor. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Jain: GBT: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Other: advisory board; Argenx: Other: advisory board; DOVA: Other: advisory board.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hessam Bavafa ◽  
Anne Canamucio ◽  
Steven C. Marcus ◽  
Christian Terwiesch ◽  
Rachel M. Werner

We study capacity rationing by servers facing differentiated customer classes using data from the Veterans Health Administration, which is the largest integrated healthcare system in the U.S. Using more than 11 million health encounters over two years in which the system was capacity constrained, our study provides a comprehensive analysis of the impacts of provider availability shocks on care channel diversion and delays. The outcomes studied include emergency room (ER) visits broken down by type, urgent care center visits, office and phone visits with one’s own versus another provider, post-ER follow-up visits, and ER readmissions. Availability shocks in our analysis are a residualized measure characterizing weeks in which the provider has fewer (or more) office appointments than expected based on typical patterns. The main finding is that moving from two standard deviations above to two standard deviations below in availability shocks increases ER visits by 2.4%, or about 20,000 yearly ER visits. Interestingly, the increase in ER visits is only present for the non-emergent category, indicating differentiated service to emergent and non-emergent care requests; capacity-constrained providers still tend to the patients in most need. Another finding is that provider availability shocks delay and divert post-ER follow-up care. Yet there is no effect on ER readmissions, a severe outcome of delayed or foregone follow-up, indicating that providers ration by priority these follow-up appointments. This paper was accepted by Vishal Gaur, operations management.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document