Hematopoietic cell transplantation: Training challenges and potential opportunities through networking and integration of modern technologies to the practice setting

WBMT Special Article on Key Elements in Quality and Accreditation in Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapy

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) represents an example of a highly complex and costly medical procedure with major applications in hematology and oncology. It is associated with life threatening complications and, consequently, increases demands on healthcare resources. While improving quality is an integral component of the healthcare strategic planning, drivers of quality may be variable and there is logical debate as to what drives quality in HSCT. Also, HSCT programs differ in their structures and availability of resources which drive the type of transplant and determine what is affordable and/or economically feasible. The complexity of HSCT procedure with involvement of different stakeholders necessitates not only regulatory frameworks but also robust quality systems to ensure consistent standards, demonstrate transparency for regulators, and define what quality means within the HSCT program. In an era of escalating healthcare complexity and heightened fiscal responsibility, transparency and accountability, accreditation contributes to ensuring that care meets the highest standards, and can serve as a risk mitigation strategy. Quality management has become an indispensable tool for the management of a complex medical intervention such as HSCT. It allows the transplant team to monitor its activities and identify areas for continuous improvement. The Worldwide Network for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (WBMT) had invited a group of international experts in HSCT and quality management to work on providing a summary document about the key elements in quality and accreditation in HSCT and highlight the foremost challenges of implementing them with special focus on low- and middle-income economies (LMIEs).

Telemedicine in Malignant and Nonmalignant Hematology: Systematic Review of Pediatric and Adult Studies

BACKGROUND

Telemedicine, including video-, web-, and telephone-based interventions, is used in adult and pediatric populations to deliver health care and communicate with patients. In the realm of hematology, telemedicine has recently been used to safely and efficiently monitor treatment side-effects, perform consultations, and broaden the reach of subspecialty care.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to synthesize and analyze information regarding the feasibility, acceptability, and potential benefits of telemedicine interventions in malignant and nonmalignant hematology, as well as assess the recognized limitations of these interventions.

METHODS

Studies were identified through a comprehensive Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) search on the PubMed MEDLINE, Controlled Register of Clinical Trials (Cochrane CENTRAL from Wiley), Embase, and CINAHL (EBSCO) databases on February 7, 2018. A second search, utilizing the same search strategy, was performed on October 1, 2020. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines in the reporting of included evidence. Included studies were original articles researching the feasibility, acceptability, and clinical outcomes of telemedicine or telehealth interventions in pediatric or adult populations with malignant or nonmalignant hematological conditions. Data items in the extraction form included first author name, publication year, country, malignant or nonmalignant hematological condition or disease focus of the study, participant age, participant age subgroup (pediatric or adult), study design and setting, telemedicine intervention type and description, study purpose, and main study outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 32 articles met the preset criteria and were included in this study. Most (25/32) studies were conducted in adults, and the remaining (7/32) were conducted in the pediatric population. Of the 32 studies, 12 studied malignant hematological conditions, 18 studied nonmalignant conditions, and two studied both malignant and nonmalignant conditions. Study types included pilot study (11/32), retrospective study (9/32), randomized controlled trial (6/32), cross-sectional study (2/32), case study (1/32), pre-post study (1/32), noncomparative prospective study (1/32), and prospective cohort study (1/32). The three main types of telemedicine interventions utilized across all studies were video-based (9/32), telephone-based (9/32), and web-based interventions (14/32). Study results showed comparable outcomes between telemedicine and traditional patient encounter groups across both pediatric and adult populations for malignant and nonmalignant hematological conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from this review suggests that telemedicine use in nonmalignant and malignant hematology provides similar or improved health care compared to face-to-face encounters in both pediatric and adult populations. Telemedicine interventions utilized in the included studies were well received in both pediatric and adult settings. However, more research is needed to determine the efficacy of implementing more widespread use of telemedicine for hematological conditions.

Benchmarking of survival outcomes following haematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A review of existing processes and the introduction of an international system from the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) and the Joint Accreditation Committee of ISCT and EBMT (JACIE)

In many healthcare settings, benchmarking for complex procedures has become a mandatory requirement by competent authorities, regulators, payers and patients to assure clinical performance, cost-effectiveness and safe care of patients. In several countries inside and outside Europe, benchmarking systems have been established for haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), but access is not universal. As benchmarking is now integrated into the FACT-JACIE standards, the EBMT and JACIE established a Clinical Outcomes Group (COG) to develop and introduce a universal system accessible across EBMT members. Established systems from seven European countries (United Kingdom, Italy, Belgium, France, Germany, Spain, Switzerland), USA and Australia were appraised, revealing similarities in process, but wide variations in selection criteria and statistical methods. In tandem, the COG developed the first phase of a bespoke risk-adapted international benchmarking model for one-year survival following allogeneic and autologous HSCT based on current capabilities within the EBMT registry core dataset. Data completeness, which has a critical impact on validity of centre comparisons, is also assessed. Ongoing development will include further scientific validation of the model, incorporation of further variables (when appropriate) alongside implementation of systems for clinically meaningful interpretation and governance aiming to maximise acceptance to centres, clinicians, payers and patients across EBMT.