ASO Visual Abstract: Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing (TDABC) in Breast Cancer Care Delivery

Author(s):  
Navraj S. Nagra ◽  
Elena Tsangaris ◽  
Jessica Means ◽  
Michael J. Hassett ◽  
Laura S. Dominici ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Navraj S. Nagra ◽  
Elena Tsangaris ◽  
Jessica Means ◽  
Michael J. Hassett ◽  
Laura S. Dominici ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16641-e16641
Author(s):  
J. R. Trosman ◽  
C. B. Weldon ◽  
A. B. Benson ◽  
W. J. Gradishar ◽  
J. C. Schink

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 562-562
Author(s):  
Christine B. Weldon ◽  
Julia Rachel Trosman ◽  
Della F. Makower ◽  
Bruce D. Rapkin ◽  
Moreen Bozier ◽  
...  

562 Background: Under the NCI ASCO Teams Project, we proposed a 4R Model which enables patient (pt) and care team to manage timing and sequencing of interdependent care with a novel multimodality 4R Care Project Plan (Trosman JOP ’16). 4R (Right Info/Care/Patient/Time) was previously piloted at 3 Chicago centers (Weldon ASCO ‘18). Methods: A new study tested impact of 4R on timing and sequencing of guideline recommended care at 4 safety net and 3 non safety net US centers. 4R Plans were provided to stage 0-III breast cancer pts Jan-Nov’18, 4R cohort. Clinical and pt reported data analyses compared 4R cohort (N=105) to a historical control cohort of pts who received care pre-4R, Jan - Dec ’17 (N=190). Results: We significantly improved 3 referral metrics and 4 referral completion metrics - receipt of care by pts who were referred (Table). After referrals, safety net pts had a significant increase in 4R vs control cohort in receiving genetic consult (72%, 21/29 vs. 42%, 18/43, p=.02) and dental visit (100%, 6/6 vs. 20%, 1/5, p=.02). They had lower increases in flu shot referrals (41%, 24/58, vs 36%, 37/104, NS) and dental referrals (10%, 6/58, vs 5%, 5/104, NS) than non safety net pts who had significant increases. Other metrics improved at a similar rate for safety net and non safety net pts. Conclusions: 4R markedly improved referral and receipt of interdependent guideline recommended breast cancer care. For most metrics safety net pts benefited from 4R at a similar or higher rate than non safety net pts, indicating that 4R may reduce care disparities. Low increases in referrals for safety net pts and in trial referral/enrollment for all pts must be addressed. An expansion of 4R across the US continues this work. [Table: see text]


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 36-36
Author(s):  
Christine B. Weldon ◽  
Julia Rachel Trosman ◽  
Della F. Makower ◽  
Bruce D. Rapkin ◽  
Moreen Bozier ◽  
...  

36 Background: Under the NCI ASCO Teams Project, we proposed a 4R Model which enables patient (pt) and care team to manage timing and sequencing of interdependent care with a novel multimodality 4R Care Project Plan (Trosman JOP ’16). 4R (Right Info/Care/Patient/Time) was previously piloted at 3 Chicago centers (Weldon ASCO ‘18). Methods: A new study tested impact of 4R on timing and sequencing of guideline recommended care at 4 safety net and 3 non safety net US centers. 4R Plans were provided to stage 0-III breast cancer pts Jan - Nov’18, 4R cohort. Clinical and pt reported data analyses compared 4R cohort (N = 105) to a historical control cohort of pts who received care pre-4R, Jan - Dec ’17 (N = 190). Results: We significantly improved 3 referral metrics and 4 referral completion metrics - receipt of care by pts who were referred (Table). After referrals, safety net pts had a significant increase in 4R vs control cohort in receiving genetic consult (72%, 21/29 vs. 42%, 18/43, p = .02) and dental visit (100%, 6/6 vs. 20%, 1/5, p = .02). They had lower increases in flu shot referrals (41%, 24/58, vs 36%, 37/104, NS) and dental referrals (10%, 6/58, vs 5%, 5/104, NS) than non safety net pts who had significant increases. Other metrics improved at a similar rate for safety net and non safety net pts. Conclusions: 4R markedly improved referral and receipt of interdependent guideline recommended breast cancer care. For most metrics safety net pts benefited from 4R at a similar or higher rate than non safety net pts, indicating that 4R may reduce care disparities. Low increases in referrals for safety net pts and in trial referral/enrollment for all pts must be addressed. An expansion of 4R across the US continues this work. [Table: see text]


2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement 3) ◽  
pp. 41s-41s ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren E. Schleimer ◽  
Nancy L. Keating ◽  
Lawrence N. Shulman ◽  
Ben O. Anderson ◽  
Catherine Duggan ◽  
...  

Purpose Measurement of the quality of cancer care is essential for quality improvement and is widely implemented in oncology programs in high-income countries. Growing efforts are being made to measure care quality in emerging cancer care delivery systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This will require the development of measures that are clinically important, actionable, relevant to existing resources, and feasible to routinely evaluate. As part of a project to develop resource-adapted quality measures for Rwanda and other LMICs, we conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify published quality measures for the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. Methods We performed a literature search in accordance with PRISMA guidelines using the following terms in PubMed: ‘breast cancer’ and ‘quality indicator,’ ‘quality measure,’ or ‘quality metric’; and the following MeSH terms: ‘breast neoplasms’ and ‘healthcare quality indicator.’ We included English-language articles published before August 2017 that described the systematic identification of process measures for breast cancer diagnosis or treatment through literature review, clinical validation, and/or expert panel determination. We directly searched the Web sites of prominent cancer care organizations to identify additional publicly available measures. Income level was classified using World Bank definitions. Results We identified 521 published quality measures, including 419 measures from 27 peer-reviewed journal articles and 102 measures from the Web sites of national and international cancer care organizations. Twenty-five peer-reviewed publications (93%) originated from high-income countries, one from an upper-middle income country (People’s Republic of China), and one from the international Breast Health Global Initiative with process measures to assess the phased implementation of breast cancer services. No resources or articles other than that from the Breast Health Global Initiative provided suggestions for adapting measures to limited resources. Conclusion A large number of quality measures for breast cancer care have been identified and published in high-income countries; however, no breast cancer care quality measures have been systematically developed and validated for use in settings where resource limitations crucially affect care delivery and measurement feasibility. We are collaborating with clinicians in LMICs and global breast cancer experts to develop and validate quality measures that will enable quality improvement initiatives in Rwanda and other emerging cancer care delivery systems. AUTHORS' DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST The following represents disclosure information provided by authors of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I = Immediate Family Member, Inst = My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. For more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to www.asco.org/rwc or ascopubs.org/jco/site/ifc . No COIs from the authors.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e17592-e17592
Author(s):  
Ann Scheck McAlearney ◽  
Alexandra Moss ◽  
Rebeca Franco ◽  
Nina A. Bickell

e17592 Background: Underuse of adjuvant breast cancer treatment results from system failures and occurs more commonly in minority women. We assessed organizational processes associated with care coordination prior to implementing an intervention. Methods: We interviewed 29 clinical and 20 administrative key informants from 6 hospitals with high volumes of minority breast cancer patients. We analyzed qualitative interview data using the constant comparative method. Results: Hospitals varied in approaches to coordinate adjuvant therapy delivery. All hospitals made a “basic” effort to follow up with patients who missed appointments (e.g., certified letters), but some sites included “extra” efforts such as clinician calls. Processes to coordinate handoffs among providers involved use of clerical staff to reach out across specialties in most sites; several sites also explicitly involved clinicians. Effective tracking and handoffs were hindered where electronic health record (EHR) systems were not fully integrated. A critical distinction was whether breast cancer care delivery was integrated within the hospital. Better integration appeared to facilitate communication among clinicians, as well as promote service coordination. Accountability was an important factor contributing to integration, particularly in sites that were less integrated. Conclusions: Appropriate delivery of adjuvant therapies to breast cancer patients appears to be facilitated by better integration of care and services within the hospitals we studied. A fully integrated EHR and enhanced processes for tracking no shows and supporting handoffs seemed to increase integration in these hospitals. Integration was further facilitated when there was accountability for results. Strong clinical leadership can promote integration, but its impact may be lessened if hospitals’ processes are integrated. [Table: see text]


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabel Alvarado‐Cabrero ◽  
Franco Doimi ◽  
Virginia Ortega ◽  
Jurema Telles Oliveira Lima ◽  
Rubén Torres ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document