Effects of oncological care pathways in primary and secondary care on patient, professional and health systems outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Visual Modeling Languages in Patient Pathways: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Patient pathways (PPs) are presented as a panacea solution to enhance health system functions. It is a complex concept that needs to be described and communicated well. Modeling plays a crucial role in promoting communication, fostering a shared understanding, and streamlining processes. Only a few existing systematic reviews have focused on modeling methods and standardized modeling languages. There remains a gap in consolidated knowledge regarding the use of diverse visual modeling languages.

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review aimed to compile visual modeling languages used to represent PPs, including the justifications and the context in which a modeling language was adopted, adapted, combined, or developed.

METHODS

After initial experimentation with the keywords used to describe the concepts of PPs and visual modeling languages, we developed a search strategy that was further refined and customized to the major databases identified as topically relevant. In addition, we consulted gray literature and conducted hand searches of the referenced articles. Two reviewers independently screened the articles in 2 stages using preset inclusion criteria, and a third reviewer voted on the discordance. Data charting was done using an iteratively developed form in the Covidence software. Descriptive and thematic summaries were presented following rounds of discussion to produce the final report.

RESULTS

Of 1838 articles retrieved after deduplication, 22 satisfied our inclusion criteria. Clinical pathway is the most used phrase to represent the PP concept, and most papers discussed the concept without providing their operational definition. We categorized the visual modeling languages into five categories: (1) general purpose-modeling language (GPML) adopted without major extension or modification, (2) GPML used with formal extension recommendations, (3) combination of 2 or more modeling languages, (4) a developed domain-specific modeling language (DSML), and (5) ontological modeling languages. The justifications for adopting, adapting, combining, and developing visual modeling languages varied accordingly and ranged from versatility, expressiveness, tool support, and extensibility of a language to domain needs, integration, and simplification.

CONCLUSIONS

Various visual modeling languages were used in PP modeling, each with varying levels of abstraction and granularity. The categorization we made could aid in a better understanding of the complex combination of PP and modeling languages. Standardized GPMLs were used with or without any modifications. The rationale to propose any modification to GPMLs evolved as more evidence was presented following requirement analyses to support domain constructs. DSMLs are infrequently used due to their resource-intensive development, often initiated at a project level. The justifications provided and the context where DSMLs were created are paramount. Future studies should assess the merits and demerits of using a visual modeling language to facilitate PP communications among stakeholders and use evaluation frameworks to identify, modify, or develop them, depending on the scope and goal of the modeling need.

The impact of a patient-centred care pathway for patients treated with oral anticancer drugs: A multicentre pre-posttest study in Flanders

RATIONALE

In the Collaborative Network To Take Responsibility for Oral Anticancer Therapy (CONTACT) project, an evidence-based and patient-centred care(PCC) pathway was implemented in 12 oncology departments in Flanders. The care pathway was developed in cocreation by an interdisciplinary project team, and tailored to the local hospital context.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

In this study, the impact of the care pathways on quality of PCC and other patient outcomes was investigated.

METHOD

A pre-posttest study was performed in nine of the participating oncology departments. The primary outcome was quality of PCC. Furthermore, level of patient self-management, medication adherence, satisfaction with information about the oral anticancer drug and quality of life were measured as secondary outcomes. Linear mixed models were used to investigate differences in outcomes between the pre- and posttest group.

RESULTS

Quality of PCC, as well as all secondary outcomes improved after implementation of the care pathway. However, the changes in pre- and posttest scores were not significant. The overall quality of PCC increased from 3.72 to 3.88, measured on a five-point Likert scale (p = 0.124).

CONCLUSION

This study showed small, however, no significant improvements in the quality of PCC and other patient outcomes. The lack of significant changes can be attributed to the complexity of the care pathway development, poor or unstable implementation of the care pathway and limited changes in follow-up care. More insight in the actual implementation of the care pathway and potential contextual factors influencing its effect is needed to help understand the outcomes of this pre-posttest study.

Evolving oncology care management trends in the United States: A survey among health care decision makers

BACKGROUND

There is limited knowledge of how US managed care professionals view and prioritize quality metrics/performance measures, care models, alternative payment models, and clinical pathways in oncology settings.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize payor perspectives on, and the use of, oncology clinical pathways and performance measures in their reimbursement/access decision-making process.

METHODS

A survey was implemented via SurveyMonkey software and distributed electronically to a national sample of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) Market Insights Panel members from July 11 through August 5, 2022. The survey was created by a steering committee based on literature reviews of the current and future oncology care landscapes. The survey consisted of 47 questions, including those to establish respondents' position, responsibilities, and demographics. The results are presented as descriptive statistics for 7 key questions that covered the perceptions and use of quality metrics/performance measures, alternative payment models, and oncology care pathways as prioritized by the steering committee.

RESULTS

Among the 695 AMCP panel members who were sent the survey, 73 responded (response rate 10.5%), 54 were eligible to continue, and 31 completed the entire questionnaire; the low response rate may limit generalizability of the survey results. Specific oncology clinical and economic measures of performance were currently used (70%-88%) but generally received less endorsement for future use (39%-49%) except for chemotherapy during end of life, which was considered for future use by 80% of respondents but was only currently used by 31%. Benchmarking was the primary reason for the use of performance measures; only 27% used these to inform value-based agreements. Real-world data tracked by respondents' institutions primarily focused on managed care and pharmacy utilization (39%-85%), with patient-reported and clinical outcomes tracked by only 17%-34%. Almost one-third (31%) did not use clinical oncology pathways, and among those who did, fewer than half (48%) reported that their organization tracks whether treatment decisions agree with the oncology care pathways, and only 26% reported feedback to oncology providers on how often their treatment decisions agree with the pathways. When considering alternative payment models, patient-related components received lower rankings in importance than clinical relevance, actionability, and costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Variation among payors regarding current trends in oncology care management, including on the importance of patient-centric outcomes and the use of oncology clinical pathways, suggests the need to focus on value-based health care and greater uptake of oncology clinical pathways.

Improving routine use of clinical pathway decision support through integration of an EHR with a clinical library resource designed to provide evidence-based guidance within oncology workflows

BACKGROUND

The rapid evolution, complexity, and specialization of oncology treatment makes it challenging for physicians to provide care based on the latest and best evidence. We hypothesized that physicians would use evidence-based trusted care pathways if they were easy to use and integrated into clinical workflow at the point of care.

METHODS

Within a large integrated care delivery system, we assembled clinical experts to define and update drug treatment pathways, encoded them as flowcharts in an online library integrated with the electronic medical record, communicated expectations that clinicians would use these pathways for every eligible patient, and combined data from multiple sources to understand usage over time.

RESULTS

We were able to achieve > 75% utilization of eligible protocols ordered through these pathways within two years, with > 90% of individual oncologists having consulted the pathway at least once, despite no requirements or external incentives associated with pathway usage. Feedback from users contributed to improvements and updates to the guidance.

CONCLUSIONS

By making our clinical decision support easily accessible and actionable, we find that we have made considerable progress toward our goal of having physicians consult the latest evidence in their treatment decisions.

Role of digital health in coordinating patient care in a hub-and-spoke hierarchy of cancer care facilities: a scoping review

Background

Coordinating cancer care is complicated due to the involvement of multiple service providers which often leads to fragmentation. The evolution of digital health has led to the development of technology-enabled models of healthcare delivery. This scoping review provides a comprehensive summary of the use of digital health in coordinating cancer care via hub-and-spoke models.

Methods

A scoping review of the literature was undertaken using the framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley. Research articles published between 2010 and 2022 were retrieved from four electronic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Sciences, Cochrane Reviews and Global Health Library). The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses extension for the scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist were followed to present the findings.

Result

In total, 311 articles were found of which 7 studies that met the inclusion criteria were included. The use of videoconferencing was predominant across all the studies. The number of spokes varied across the studies ranging from 1 to 63. Three studies aimed to evaluate the impact on access to cancer care among patients, two studies were related to capacity building of the health care workers at the spoke sites, one study was based on a peer review of radiotherapy plans, and one study was related to risk assessment and patient navigation. The introduction of digital health led to reduced travel time and waiting period for patients, and standardisation of radiotherapy plans at spokes. Tele-mentoring intervention aimed at capacity-building resulted in higher confidence and increased knowledge among the spoke learners.

Conclusion

There is limited evidence for the role of digital health in the hub-and-spoke design. Although all the studies have highlighted the digital components being used to coordinate care, the bottlenecks, Which were overcome during the implementation of the interventions and the impact on cancer outcomes, need to be rigorously analysed.

Identification of an oncological clinical pathway through questionnaires to health professionals

BACKGROUND

Clinical Pathways in Oncology can benefit patients using organized interventions to standardize and increase care efficiency. Healthcare systems should have tools to identify their oncological clinical pathways for a better institutional organization to reduce mortality rates and contain costs without compromising quality. Our objective is to determine the regional Oncology Clinical Pathway from a first basic hypothesis using questionnaires directed to healthcare professionals considered key deciders within the Pathway.

METHODS

Study design consisted of data analysis of two structured region-wide questionnaires; built using available literature on Oncology Clinical Pathways, in a Portuguese Healthcare context and pre-tested in a focus group of key deciders (Physicians and nurses with management functions) from which a design was created. Queries analyzed the patients: tumor staging at service arrival; time intervals on tumor suspicion/diagnosis confirmation and diagnosis/first treatment; referral pathway; diagnostic networks and patient Follow-up. One questionnaire was sent to key deciders directly involved with Oncology patients at a Regional Hospital. 15 physicians and 18 nurses of this sample answered the questionnaire (approx. response rate = 67%). Another questionnaire sent to healthcare professionals in Primary Healthcare Centers yielded response rate 19.2%, N = 29 physicians and 46 nurses. Finally, we performed a descriptive analysis and a Cronbach Alpha reliability analysis.

RESULTS

Our findings reveal: different appreciations of tumor staging at arrival in Primary Healthcare Centers and Regional Hospitals (the latter receiving more metastatic cases); approximately 4 weeks between tumor suspicion-diagnostic and divided opinions regarding diagnostic-treatment time intervals. Primary Healthcare Centers depend on private laboratories for diagnostics confirmation, while the Hospitals resolve this locally. Referral pathways indicate almost half of the patients being sent from primary healthcare centers to National Reference Hospitals instead of a Regional Hospital. Patient follow-up is developed throughout the institutions, however, is more established at Regional Hospitals. As patients advance through the Oncology Clinical Pathway and toward treatment stages the number of healthcare professionals involved reduce.

CONCLUSION

Our questionnaires enable us to understand the real pathway between the different institutions involved and the main entry points of the patients into the Oncology Clinical Pathway.

The complexities, coordination, culture and capacities that characterise the delivery of oncology services in the common areas of ambulatory settings

Background

Relatively little is understood about real-world provision of oncology care in ambulatory outpatient clinics (OPCs). This study aimed to: 1) develop an understanding of behaviours and practices inherent in the delivery of cancer services in OPC common areas by characterising the organisation and implementation of this care; and 2) identify barriers to, and facilitators of, the delivery of this care in OPC common areas.

Methods

A purpose-designed ethnographic study was employed in four public hospital OPCs. Informal field scoping activities were followed by in-situ observations, key informant interviews and document review. A view of OPCs as complex adaptive systems was used as a scaffold for the data collection and interpretation, with the intent of understanding ‘work as done’. Data were analysed using an adapted “Qualitative Rapid Appraisal, Rigorous Analysis” approach.

Results

Field observations were conducted over 135 h, interviews over 6.5 h and documents were reviewed. Analysis found six themes. Staff working in OPCs see themselves as part of small local teams and as part of a broader multidisciplinary care team. Professional role boundaries could be unclear in practice, as duties expanded to meet demand or to stop patients “falling through the cracks.” Formal care processes in OPCs were supported by relationships, social capital and informal, but invaluable, institutional expertise. Features of the clinic layout, such as the proximity of departments, affected professional interactions. Staff were aware of inter- and intra-service communication difficulties and employed strategies to minimise negative impacts on patients. We found that complexity, coordination, culture and capacity underpin the themes that characterise this care provision.

Conclusions

The study advances understanding of how multidisciplinary care is delivered in ambulatory settings and the factors which promote or inhibit effective care practice. Time pressures, communication challenges and competing priorities can pose barriers to care delivery. OPC care is facilitated by: self-organisation of participants; professional acumen; institutional knowledge; social ties and relationships between and within professional groups; and commitment to patient-centred care. An understanding of the realities of ‘work-as-done’ may help OPCs to sustain high-quality care in the face of escalating service demand.

Reorganizing the Multidisciplinary Team Meetings in a Tertiary Centre for Gastro-Intestinal Oncology Adds Value to the Internal and Regional Care Pathways. A Mixed Method Evaluation

INTRODUCTION

The reorganisation of the structure of a Gastro-Intestinal Oncology Multidisciplinary Team Meeting (GIO-MDTM) in a tertiary centre with three care pathways is evaluated on added value.

METHODS

In a mixed method investigation, process indicators such as throughput times were analysed and stakeholders were interviewed regarding benefits and drawbacks of the reorganisation and current MDTM functioning.

RESULTS

For the hepatobiliary care pathway, the time to treatment plan increased, but the time to start treatment reduced significantly. The percentage of patients treated within the Dutch standard of 63 days increased for the three care pathways. From the interviews, three themes emerged: added value of MDTMs, focus on planning integrated care and awareness of possible improvements.

DISCUSSION

The importance of evaluating interventions in oncology care pathways is shown, including detecting unexpected drawbacks. The evaluation provides insight into complex dynamics of the care pathways and contributes with recommendations on functioning of an MDTM.

CONCLUSIONS

Throughput times are only partly determined by oncology care pathway management, but have influence on the functioning of MDTMs. Process indicator information can help to reflect on integration of care in the region, resulting in an increase of patients treated within the Dutch standard.