Data Unit, Translational Research, and Registries

Research is the only way to challenge the existing standards of care; a dynamic and multidimensional process encompassing innovative therapeutic modalities, techniques, and interventions to optimize outcomes and quality of life of cancer patients. Cancer research has emerged as one of the core competencies for the standardization, accreditation, and academic standing of any comprehensive cancer center. Data unit is the center of gravity and the hub of research and development (databases, registries, translational research, randomized control trials) in a quality cancer care facility. Quality assurance, ethical conduct, and monitoring of research are the hallmarks of a center of excellence in galvanizing the research efforts and optimizing the quality outcomes.

Building Quality from the Ground Up in a Cancer Center

The Institute of Medicine defines quality in healthcare as the degree to which health services for individuals and populations increase the likelihood of desired health outcomes and are consistent with current professional knowledge. This concept is highly relevant for cancer care that involves patients with complex diseases in the setting of rapidly evolving treatment landscape that requires provision of appropriate services in a patient-centric and technically competent manner. This chapter uses the Donabedian model to review the structural, process, and outcome-based quality domains that lay the foundation for a robust system to measure, monitor, and improve quality of care at cancer centers. The infrastructure and personnel, systems, and culture needed for ensuring provision of high-quality cancer care are reviewed.

Results of a multistate, multi-institution implementation of a multidisciplinary cancer conference quality measurement tool.

212 Background: The 2006 ASCO and the ESMO consensus statement on quality cancer care defined the delivery of multimodality treatment by a multidisciplinary team of appropriately skilled health professionals as an essential component of quality cancer care. Furthermore, MDCs have demonstrated improved survival in breast, head and neck, ovarian and colorectal cancers. Despite these advantages, health care systems struggle to implement and sustain MDCs due to the heavy burden imposed by the required work processes. We report on the large-scale utilization of a propriety quality measurement platform OncoLens to run MDCs across the country. Methods: Technology quality metrics were collected from the ongoing daily usage of the platform including cancer characteristics, care team utilization metrics, average attendance, quality metrics collected for accreditation and clinical trials matching on the OncoLens platform. Results: The virtual platform was accessible to around 8000 providers across the United States. In 2020, 13771 cases were discussed. Attendance of the required specialties for high quality care of Medical Oncology, Radiation Oncology, Surgery, Pathology and Radiology was attained, with the average conference attendance being 14. Race/ethnicity data on the cases revealed White (9197, 67%), Black (1817,13%), Hispanic (363,3%) and Other (2356,17%). Optional quality metrics were collected during discussions for CoC, NAPBC and NAPRC accreditation. These included NCCN guidelines discussed, Staging discussed, clinical trials discussed, Genetics discussion, palliative care discussion, rehabilitation services, reproductive counselling discussed, psychosocial counselling discussed, nutritional counselling discussed, reconstructive surgery discussion, tobacco cessation discussion across General and Site-specific conferences. Most of the case presentations were prospective. This format does enable cancer programs to collect quality metrics around Cancer program accreditation by the American College of Surgeons. 66% of patients discussed potentially matched to clinical trials during the discussion. Conclusions: A technology platform can assist cancer programs to collect quality metrics around cancer care. This gives them the ability to run data driven quality programs targeting specific quality metrics. Hispanics have a lower percentage of cases presented at MDC compared to other race/ethnicities. It is possible to have high quality discussions and attain metrics for Commission on Cancer accreditation utilizing a virtual platform.

Trainee-Led Quality Improvement Project to Improve Fertility Preservation Counseling for Patients With Cancer

PURPOSE: Oncofertility counseling regarding the reproductive risks associated with cancer therapy is essential for quality cancer care. We aimed to increase the rate of oncofertility counseling for patients of reproductive age (18-40 years) with cancer who were initiating systemic therapy at the Johns Hopkins Cancer Center from a baseline rate of 37% (25 of 68, June 2019-January 2020) to 70% by February 2021. METHODS: We formed an interprofessional, multidisciplinary team as part of the ASCO Quality Training Program. We obtained data from the electronic medical record and verified data with patients by phone. We surveyed patients, oncologists, and fertility specialists to identify barriers. After considering a prioritization matrix, we implemented Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles. RESULTS: We identified the following improvement opportunities: (1) oncologist self-reported lack of knowledge about counseling and local fertility preservation options and (2) lack of a standardized referral mechanism to fertility services. During the first PDSA cycle (February 2020-August 2020, disrupted by COVID-19), we introduced the initiative to increase oncofertility counseling at faculty meetings. From September 2020 to November 2020, we implemented a second PDSA cycle: (1) educating and presenting the initiative at Oncology Grand Rounds, (2) distributing informative pamphlets to oncologists and patients, and (3) implementing an electronic medical record order set. In the third PDSA cycle (December 2020-February 2021), we redesigned the order set to add information (eg, contact information for fertility coordinator) to the patient after-visit summary. Postimplementation (September 2020-February 2021), counseling rates increased from 37% to 81% (38 of 47). CONCLUSION: We demonstrate how a trainee-led, patient-centered initiative improved oncofertility care. Ongoing work focuses on ensuring sustainability and assessing the quality of counseling.

NCCN Policy Summit: Innovative Solutions to Drive Down Healthcare Costs: Implications for Access to High-Quality Cancer Care

The cost of delivering high-quality healthcare in America now consumes 17.7% of the nation’s gross domestic product according to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services National Health Expenditure Data. With costs threatening to disrupt accessible and equitable care for patients, policymakers are reassessing all matters and functions of the healthcare system to excise waste, redundancies, and costly services. To explore this subjects’ impact on oncology, NCCN hosted the NCCN Policy Summit: Innovative Solutions to Drive Down Healthcare Costs: Implications for Access to High Quality Cancer Care. This virtual summit featured multidisciplinary panel discussions and keynote addresses. Seeking to address barriers to low-cost, high-quality cancer care, panelists and keynotes presented innovative policy solutions to sustain high-quality oncologic care at lower costs to the health system. This article encapsulates the discussions held during the summit and expounds upon salient points where appropriate.

Patterns of End-of-Life Care as Measured by Emergency Room Visits Among Cancer Patients in Puerto Rico

Background: Community palliative care (PC) services are scarce in Puerto Rico (PR). Patients with advanced cancer commonly visit the emergency department(ED) at the end of life (EoL). Recognition of patients with limited life expectancies and PC needs may improve the EoL trajectory of these patients. Our objective was to characterize ED visits of cancer patients at the EoL by examining the patterns of ED visits in PR using the PR Central Cancer Registry-Health Insurance Linkage Database (PRCCR-HILD). Methods: The cohort consisted of patients aged ≥18 years with a primary invasive that died between 2011- 2017, with a recorded date of death, and who had insurance claims during their last three months. EoL indicators were ED visits, ED death, and hospice care use. Results: The study cohort included 10,755 cancer patients. 49.6% had ≥1 ED visit, 20.3% had ≥2 ED visits, and 9.7% died in the ED. In the adjusted model, female patients (aOR 0.80; 95% CI 0.68-0.93; p-value < 0.01), patients aged ≥80 years (aOR 0.47; 95% CI 0.36-0.63; p-value < 0.01), being enrolled in Medicare (aOR 0.74; 95% CI 0.61-0.90; p-value < 0.01) or being enrolled in Medicaid/Medicare (aOR 0.76; 95% CI 0.62-0.93; p-value = 0.01) were less likely to have an ED visit the date of death. Patients with distant stage are more likely to have ED ≥ 2visits ( p-value < 0.05). Conclusions: ED visits at EoL can be interpreted as poor quality cancer care and awareness of the potential of ED-initiated PC is needed in PR.