The Anatomy and Physiology of Teaming in Cancer Care Delivery: A Conceptual Framework

Health-care organization characteristics in cancer care delivery: an integrated conceptual framework with content validation

Context can influence cancer-related outcomes. For example, health-care organization characteristics, including ownership, leadership, and culture, can affect care access, communication, and patient outcomes. Health-care organization characteristics and other contextual factors can also influence whether and how clinical discoveries reduce cancer incidence, morbidity, and mortality. Importantly, policy, market, and technology changes are transforming health-care organization design, culture, and operations across the cancer continuum. Consequently, research is essential to examine when, for whom, and how organizational characteristics influence person-level, organization-level, and population-level cancer outcomes. Understanding organizational characteristics-the structures, processes, and other features of entities involved in health care delivery-and their dynamics is an important yet understudied area of care delivery research across the cancer continuum. Research incorporating organizational characteristics is critical to address health inequities, test care delivery models, adapt interventions, and strengthen implementation. The field lacks conceptual grounding, however, to help researchers identify germane organizational characteristics. We propose a framework identifying organizational characteristics relevant for cancer care delivery research based on conceptual work in health services, organizational behavior, and management science and refined using a systematic review and key informant input. The proposed framework is a tool for organizing existing research and enhancing future cancer care delivery research. Following a 2012 Journal of the National Cancer Institute monograph, this work complements National Cancer Institute efforts to stimulate research addressing the relationship between cancer outcomes and contextual factors at the patient, provider, team, delivery organization, community, and health policy levels.

Improving the quality of patient care in lung cancer: key factors for successful multidisciplinary team working

International Guidelines as well as Cancer Associations recommend a multidisciplinary approach to lung cancer care. A multidisciplinary team (MDT) can significantly improve treatment decision-making and patient coordination by putting different physicians and other health professionals "in the same room", who collectively decide upon the best possible treatment. However, this is not a panacea for cancer treatment. The impact of multidisciplinary care (MDC) on patient outcomes is not univocal, while the effective functioning of the MDT depends on many factors. This review presents the available MDT literature with an emphasis on the key factors that characterize high-quality patient care in lung cancer. The study was conducted with a bibliographic search using different electronic databases (PubMed Central, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Google) referring to multidisciplinary cancer care settings. Many key elements appear consolidated, while others emerge as prevalent and actual, especially those related to visible barriers which work across geographic, organizational, and disciplinary boundaries. MDTs must be sustained by strategic management, structured within the entity, and cannot be managed as a separate care process. Furthermore, they need to coordinate with other teams (within and outside the organization) and join with the broad range of services delivered by multiple providers at various points of the cancer journey or within the system, with the vision of integrated care.

Program-Based Lung Cancer Care: A Prospective Observational Tumor Registry Linkage Study

Introduction

Low-dose computed tomography screening (LDCT) and lung nodule programs (LNP) promote early lung cancer detection, improve survival; Multidisciplinary Care Programs (MDC) promote guideline-concordant care. The impact of such program-based care on "real-world" lung cancer survival is unquantified. We evaluated outcomes of lung cancer care delivered through structured programs in a community health care system.

Methods

We conducted a cohort study linking institutional prospective observational LDCT, LNP and MDC databases with Tumor Registry of Baptist Cancer Center facilities. We categorized all patients diagnosed with lung cancer between 2011 and 2021 into program-based care versus non-program-based care cohorts. We compared patient characteristics, stage distribution, treatment modalities, survival and mortality in each pathway of care.

Results

Of 12,148 patients, 237, 1,165, 1,140 and 9,606 were diagnosed through the LDCT, LNP, MDC or no program, respectively; non-program-based care sequentially diminished from 96.3% to 66.5%, diagnosis through LDCT increased from 0.5% to 7.1%, LNP from 3.5% to 20.8%; and MDC alone decreased from a high of 12.8% in 2014 to 5.6% in 2021. Program-based care was associated with earlier stage (p < 0.001), higher surgical resection rates (p < 0.001), greater use of adjuvant therapy (p < 0.001), better aggregate and stage-stratified survival (p < 0.001), and lower all-cause and lung cancer-specific mortality (p < 0.001). Recipients of non-program-based care were considerably less likely to receive lung cancer treatment; results remained consistent when patients receiving no treatment were excluded.

Conclusions

Program-based care was associated with substantially better survival. Increasing access to program-based care should be explored as a matter of urgent public policy.

Interdisciplinary interventions that improve patient-reported outcomes in perioperative cancer care: A systematic review of randomized control trials

INTRODUCTION

Interdisciplinary teams are often leveraged to improve quality of cancer care in the perioperative period. We aimed to identify the team structures and processes in interdisciplinary interventions that improve perioperative patient-reported outcomes for patients with cancer.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL for randomized control trials published at any time and screened 7,195 articles. To be included in our review, studies needed to report patient-reported outcomes, have interventions that occur in the perioperative period, include surgical cancer treatment, and include at least one non physician intervention clinical team member: advanced practice providers, including nurse practitioners and physician assistants, clinical nurse specialists, and registered nurses. We narratively synthesized intervention components, specifically roles assumed by intervention clinical team members and interdisciplinary team processes, to compare interventions that improved patient-reported outcomes, based on minimal clinically important difference and statistical significance.

RESULTS

We included 34 studies with a total of 4,722 participants, of which 31 reported a clinically meaningful improvement in at least one patient-reported outcome. No included studies had an overall high risk of bias. The common clinical team member roles featured patient education regarding diagnosis, treatment, coping, and pain/symptom management as well as postoperative follow up regarding problems after surgery, resource dissemination, and care planning. Other intervention components included six or more months of continuous clinical team member contact with the patient and involvement of the patient's caregiver.

CONCLUSIONS

Future interventions might prioritize supporting clinical team members roles to include patient education, caregiver engagement, and clinical follow-up.

Towards diagnostic excellence on academic ward teams: building a conceptual model of team dynamics in the diagnostic process

OBJECTIVES

Achieving diagnostic excellence on medical wards requires teamwork and effective team dynamics. However, the study of ward team dynamics in teaching hospitals is relatively underdeveloped. We aim to enhance understanding of how ward team members interact in the diagnostic process and of the underlying behavioral, psychological, and cognitive mechanisms driving team interactions.

METHODS

We used mixed-methods to develop and refine a conceptual model of how ward team dynamics in an academic medical center influence the diagnostic process. First, we systematically searched existing literature for conceptual models and empirical studies of team dynamics. Then, we conducted field observations with thematic analysis to refine our model.

RESULTS

We present a conceptual model of how medical ward team dynamics influence the diagnostic process, which serves as a roadmap for future research and interventions in this area. We identified three underexplored areas of team dynamics that are relevant to diagnostic excellence and that merit future investigation (1): ward team structures (e.g., team roles, responsibilities) (2); contextual factors (e.g., time constraints, location of team members, culture, diversity); and (3) emergent states (shared mental models, psychological safety, team trust, and team emotions).

CONCLUSIONS

Optimizing the diagnostic process to achieve diagnostic excellence is likely to depend on addressing all of the potential barriers and facilitators to ward team dynamics presented in our model.

Outcomes of Antineoplastic Immunotherapy at a Large Healthcare Organization: Impact of Provider, Race and Socioeconomic Status

Purpose

Disparities in cancer care delivery remain a pressing health-care crisis within the United States (US). The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and their management may be a disparity generator that impacts survival. This retrospective study assessed disparities in a cohort of patients with a variety of solid tumors treated with ICIs within a single health-care organization focusing on the impact of race, socioeconomic status (SES) and site of care delivery on survival and the development of severe immune-related adverse events (irAEs).

Patients and Methods

Manual chart review was performed on all patients with solid tumors treated with ICIs within a health-care organization from 2012 to 2018. Care delivery was dichotomized as DOP (disease-oriented provider at academic center) and COP (community oncology provider). Primary and secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and rates of grade 3-4 irAEs, respectively. Relationships with covariates of interest, including race, socioeconomic status and type of care delivery, were assessed among both outcomes.

Results

A total of 1070 eligible patients were identified. Of those, 11.4% were of Black race, 59.7% had either non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or melanoma and 82.8% had stage IV disease. Patients of Black race and lower SES were more likely to be treated by DOPs (p<0.0001). A superior OS was associated with care delivered by DOPs when compared to COPs (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.56-0.84; p=0.0002), which was durable after accounting for race, SES, histopathologic diagnosis and disease stage. Melanoma patients experienced higher rates of severe irAEs (HR 2.37; 95% CI 1.42-3.97; p=0.001). Race, SES and site of care delivery were not related to rates of severe irAEs.

Conclusion

In a large health-care organization, patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors by DOPs benefited from a significant OS advantage that was durable after controlling for racial and socioeconomic factors, providing evidence that disease-oriented care has the potential to mitigate racial and socioeconomic disparities.

Integrative review of remote patient monitoring in gynecologic and urologic surgical oncology

Patients with cancer facing complex and invasive urologic and gynecologic cancer surgery often experience symptoms and rapid declines in functional capacity postoperatively. Remote patient monitoring that leverages patient-generated health data is a potential approach to assess and promote postoperative recovery. This integrative review aims to provide an overview of the current literature and research on remote patient monitoring in gynecologic and urologic surgical oncology.

Fostering a High-Functioning Team in Cancer Care Using the 4R Oncology Model: Assessment in a Large Health System and a Blueprint for Other Institutions

PURPOSE

Delivering cancer care by high-functioning multidisciplinary teams promises to address care fragmentation, which threatens care quality, affects patient outcomes, and strains the oncology workforce. We assessed whether the 4R Oncology model for team-based interdependent care delivery and patient self-management affected team functioning in a large community-based health system.

METHODS

4R was deployed at four locations in breast and lung cancers and assessed along four characteristics of high-functioning teams: recognition as a team internally and externally; commitment to an explicit shared goal; enablement of interdependent work to achieve the goal; and engagement in regular reflection to adapt objectives and processes.

RESULTS

We formed an internally and externally recognized team of 24 specialties committed to a shared goal of delivering multidisciplinary care at the optimal time and sequence from a patient-centric viewpoint. The team conducted 40 optimizations of interdependent care (22 for breast, seven for lung, and 11 for both cancers) at four points in the care continuum and established an ongoing teamwork adaptation process. Half of the optimizations entailed low effort, while 30% required high level of effort; 78% resulted in improved process efficiency.

CONCLUSION

4R facilitated development of a large high-functioning team and enabled 40 optimizations of interdependent care along the cancer care continuum in a feasible way. 4R may be an effective approach for fostering high-functioning teams, which could contribute to improving viability of the oncology workforce. Our intervention and taxonomy of results serve as a blueprint for other institutions motivated to strengthen teamwork to improve patient-centered care.

Understanding the Impact of Medicaid-Serving Primary Care Team Functioning and Clinical Context on Cancer Care Treatment Quality: Implications for Addressing Structural Inequities

PURPOSE

Primary care factors related to Medicaid enrollees' receipt of guideline concordant cancer treatment is understudied; however, team structure and processes likely affect care disparities. We explore Medicaid-serving primary care teams functioning within multiteam systems to understand performance variations in quality of breast and colorectal cancer care.

METHODS

We conducted a comparative case study, using critical case sampling of primary care clinics in New Jersey, to provide maximum variation on clinic-level care performance rates (Medicaid enrollees' receipt of guideline-concordant treatment). Site evaluations, conducted from 2019 to 2020, included observation (2-3 days) and interviews. Using a multistep analytic process, we explored contextual factors within primary care that may contribute to cancer care performance variations.

RESULTS

We identified performance variations stemming from adaptations of multiteam system inputs and processes on the basis of contextual factors (ie, business model, clinic culture). Team 1 (average performer), part of a multisite safety-net clinic system, mainly teamed outside their organization, relying on designated roles, protocol-based care, and quality improvement informed by within-team metrics. Team 2 (high performer), part of a for-profit health system, remained mission-driven to improve urban health, teamed exclusively with internal teams through electronically enabled information exchange and health system-wide quality improvement efforts. Team 3 (low performer), a physician-owned private practice with minimal teaming, accepted Medicaid enrollees to diversify their payer mix and relied on referral-based care with limited consideration of social barriers.

CONCLUSION

Primary care team structures and processes variations may (in part) explain performance variations. Future research aiming to improve care quality for Medicaid populations should consider primary care teams' capacity and context in relation to composite teams to support care quality improvements in subsequent prospective trials.

Clinical Multiteam System Composition and Complexity Among Newly Diagnosed Early-Stage Breast, Colorectal, and Lung Cancer Patients With Multiple Chronic Conditions: A SEER-Medicare Analysis

PURPOSE

Sixty percent of adults have multiple chronic conditions at cancer diagnosis. These patients may require a multidisciplinary clinical team-of-teams, or a multiteam system (MTS), of high-complexity involving multiple specialists and primary care, who, ideally, coordinate clinical responsibilities, share information, and align clinical decisions to ensure comprehensive care needs are managed. However, insights examining MTS composition and complexity among individuals with cancer and comorbidities at diagnosis using US population-level data are limited.

METHODS

Using SEER-Medicare data (2006-2016), we identified newly diagnosed patients with breast, colorectal, or lung cancer who had a codiagnosis of cardiopulmonary disease and/or diabetes (n = 75,201). Zaccaro's theory-based classification of MTSs was used to categorize clinical MTS complexity in the 4 months following cancer diagnosis: high-complexity (≥ 4 clinicians from ≥ 2 specialties) and low-complexity (1-3 clinicians from 1-2 specialties). We describe the proportions of patients with different MTS compositions and quantify the incidence of high-complexity MTS care by patient groups.

RESULTS

The most common MTS composition was oncology with primary care (37%). Half (50.3%) received high-complexity MTS care. The incidence of high-complexity MTS care for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients with cancer was 6.7% (95% CI, -8.0 to -5.3) and 4.7% (95% CI, -6.3 to -3.0) lower than non-Hispanic White patients with cancer; 13.1% (95% CI, -14.1 to -12.2) lower for rural residents compared with urban; 10.4% (95% CI, -11.2 to -9.5) lower for dual Medicaid-Medicare beneficiaries compared with Medicare-only; and 16.6% (95% CI, -17.5 to -15.8) lower for colorectal compared with breast cancer.

CONCLUSION

Incidence differences of high-complexity MTS care were observed among cancer patients with multiple chronic conditions from underserved populations. The results highlight the need to further understand the effects of and mechanisms through which care team composition, complexity, and functioning affect care quality and outcomes.

Geographic differences in community oncology provider and practice location characteristics in the central United States

PURPOSE

How care delivery influences urban-rural disparities in cancer outcomes is unclear. We sought to understand community oncologists' practice settings to inform cancer care delivery interventions.

METHODS

We conducted secondary analysis of a national dataset of providers billing Medicare from June 1, 2019 to May 31, 2020 in 13 states in the central United States. We used Kruskal-Wallis rank and Fisher's exact tests to compare physician characteristics and practice settings among rural and urban community oncologists.

FINDINGS

We identified 1,963 oncologists practicing in 1,492 community locations; 67.5% practiced in exclusively urban locations, 11.3% in exclusively rural locations, and 21.1% in both rural and urban locations. Rural-only, urban-only, and urban-rural spanning oncologists practice in an average of 1.6, 2.4, and 5.1 different locations, respectively. A higher proportion of rural community sites were solo practices (11.7% vs 4.0%, P<.001) or single specialty practices (16.4% vs 9.4%, P<.001); and had less diversity in training environments (86.5% vs 67.8% with <2 medical schools represented, P<.001) than urban community sites. Rural multispecialty group sites were less likely to include other cancer specialists.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified 2 potentially distinct styles of care delivery in rural communities, which may require distinct interventions: (1) innovation-isolated rural oncologists, who are more likely to be solo providers, provide care at few locations, and practice with doctors with similar training experiences; and (2) urban-rural spanning oncologists who provide care at a high number of locations and have potential to spread innovation, but may face high complexity and limited opportunity for care standardization.

Team-Based Care for Cancer Survivors With Comorbidities: A Systematic Review

Coordination of quality care for the growing population of cancer survivors with comorbidities remains poorly understood, especially among health disparity populations who are more likely to have comorbidities at the time of cancer diagnosis. This systematic review synthesized the literature from 2000 to 2022 on team-based care for cancer survivors with comorbidities and assessed team-based care conceptualization, teamwork processes, and outcomes. Six databases were searched for original articles on adults with cancer and comorbidity, which defined care team composition and comparison group, and assessed clinical or teamwork processes or outcomes. We identified 1,821 articles of which 13 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies occurred during active cancer treatment and nine focused on depression management. Four studies focused on Hispanic or Black cancer survivors and one recruited rural residents. The conceptualization of team-based care varied across articles. Teamwork processes were not explicitly measured, but teamwork concepts such as communication and mental models were mentioned. Despite team-based care being a cornerstone of quality cancer care, studies that simultaneously assessed care delivery and outcomes for cancer and comorbidities were largely absent. Improving care coordination will be key to addressing disparities and promoting health equity for cancer survivors with comorbidities.

Virtual Tumor Board Increases Provider Attendance and Case Presentations

PURPOSE:

Many cancer centers engage in multidisciplinary tumor board meetings to determine the optimal approach to complex cancer care. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, many institutions changed the format of these meetings from in-person to virtual. The aim of this study was to determine if the change to a virtual meeting format had an impact on attendance and cases presented.

METHODS:

Tumor board records were analyzed to obtain attendance and case presentation information at a National Cancer Institute–designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. Twelve-month in-person tumor board data were compared with 12-month virtual tumor board data to assess for difference in attendance and case presentation patterns.

RESULTS:

Seven separate weekly tumor board meetings at the beginning of the study (breast, GI, gynecology, liver, lung, melanoma, and urology) were expanded to nine meetings on the virtual platform (+endocrine and pancreas). Overall attendance increased by 46% on the virtual platform compared with in-person meetings (4,030 virtual attendances v 2,753 in-person, P < .001). Increased attendance was present across all specialties on the virtual platform. In addition, the number of patient cases discussed increased from 2,127 in in-person meeting to 2,656 on the virtual platform (a 20% increase, P < .001).

CONCLUSION:

A significant increase was observed in overall tumor board attendance and in case presentations per meeting, requiring the expansion of additional weekly meetings. Furthermore, in a major cancer center with multiple community affiliates, virtual tumor boards may encourage increased participation from remote sites with the benefit of obtaining expert specialist advice as compared with geographically challenging in-person meetings.

Cancer prevention, risk reduction, and control: opportunities for the next decade of health care delivery research

In this commentary, we discuss opportunities to optimize cancer care delivery in the next decade building from evidence and advancements in the conceptualization and implementation of multi-level translational behavioral interventions. We summarize critical issues and discoveries describing new directions for translational behavioral research in the coming decade based on the promise of the accelerated application of this evidence within learning health systems. To illustrate these advances, we discuss cancer prevention, risk reduction (particularly precision prevention and early detection), and cancer treatment and survivorship (particularly risk- and need-stratified comprehensive care) and propose opportunities to equitably improve outcomes while addressing clinician shortages and cross-system coordination. We also discuss the impacts of COVID-19 and potential advances of scientific knowledge in the context of existing evidence, the need for adaptation, and potential areas of innovation to meet the needs of converging crises (e.g., fragmented care, workforce shortages, ongoing pandemic) in cancer health care delivery. Finally, we discuss new areas for exploration by applying key lessons gleaned from implementation efforts guided by advances in behavioral health.

Teaming in the contemporary fertility clinic: creating a culture to optimize patient care

When a diverse group of individuals is working together in the contemporary fertility clinic to provide time-sensitive and complex care for patients, a high degree of coordination and collaboration must take place. When performed dynamically, this process is referred to as teaming. Although the positive impact of teamwork in health care settings has been well established in the literature, the concept of teaming has limited foundation in the clinic. This review will provide an overview of how teaming can be used to improve patient care in today's fertility clinics. Approaches to integrating teaming into the clinic that will be discussed include framing, the creation of a psychologically safe environment for staff input, and facilitating collaborative constructs to support teaming. Best practices to implement teaming and how to address challenges to teaming in today's clinical environment will also be addressed.