Redesigning Advanced Cancer Care Delivery: Three Ways to Create Higher Value Cancer Care

Let Us Have the Conversation: Serious Illness Communication in Oncology: Definitions, Barriers, and Successful Approaches

Serious illness communications are crucial elements of care delivery for patients with cancer. High-quality serious illness communications are composed of open, honest discussions between patients, caregivers, and clinicians regarding patient's communication preferences, expected illness trajectory, prognosis, and risks and benefits of any recommended care. High-quality communication ideally starts at the time of a patients' cancer diagnosis, allows space for and response to patient emotions, elicits patients' values and care preferences, and is iterative and longitudinal. When integrated into cancer care, such communication can result in improved patient experiences with their care, care that matches patients' goals, and reduced care intensity at the end of life. Despite national recommendations for routine integration of these communication into cancer care, a minority of patients with cancer receive such communication. In this chapter, we describe elements of high-quality serious illness communication, patient-, clinician-, institution-, and payer-level barriers, and successful strategies that can routinely integrate such communication into cancer care delivery.

Effect of a Community Health Worker-Led Intervention Among Low-Income and Minoritized Patients With Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

To determine whether a community health worker (CHW)-led intervention could improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL; primary outcome) more than usual care among low-income and racial and ethnic minoritized populations newly diagnosed with cancer.

METHODS

This randomized clinical trial was conducted from November 1, 2018, until August 31, 2021, in outpatient cancer clinics in Atlantic City, NJ, and Chicago, IL. Hourly low-wage worker members of an employer union health fund age 18 years or older with newly diagnosed solid tumor and hematologic malignancies were randomly assigned 1:1 to usual care (control group) or usual care augmented with a trained CHW for 12 months (intervention group). The CHW assisted participants with advance care planning (ACP), proactively screened symptoms, and referred participants to community-based resources for identified health-related social needs. Usual care comprised nurse case management and benefits redesign (waived copayments and free transportation for any cancer care received at preferred oncology clinics in each city). The primary outcome was HRQoL. Secondary outcomes included patient activation, satisfaction with decision, ACP documentation, health care use, total health care costs, and overall survival.

RESULTS

A total of 160 participants were enrolled. Intervention group participants had a greater increase in mean HRQoL scores at 4-month and 12-month follow-up as compared with baseline than control group participants (expected mean difference, 11.25 [95% CI, 7.28 to 15.22]; 11.29 [95% CI, 6.96 to 15.62], respectively).

CONCLUSION

In this randomized trial, a CHW-led intervention significantly improved HRQoL for low-income and racial and ethnic minoritized patients with cancer more than usual care alone.

Health Care Professionals' Perspectives on Implementation, Adoption, and Maintenance of a Community Health Worker-Led Advance Care Planning and Cancer Symptom Screening Intervention: A Qualitative Study

PURPOSE

Advance care planning (ACP) and symptom screening are nationally recommended for all patients with advanced stages of cancer. Yet, routine delivery of such care remains challenging because of multilevel barriers. We hired and trained community health workers (CHWs) to assist with delivery of these services across the United States. The aim of this study was to explore health care professionals' perspectives on barriers and facilitators to these team-based approaches.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews with 44 health care professionals in 21 cancer clinics in seven US cities using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework. We recorded, transcribed, and analyzed interviews using the framework analysis approach.

RESULTS

Participants noted barriers and facilitators to implementation, adoption, and maintenance of CHW-led ACP and symptom management approaches. Participants were initially skeptical; however, they noted a positive shift in their views over time because of personal experiences and effectiveness in their clinics. There was significant variation in adoption with some using a prescriptive top-down approach and others a bottom-up approach. Most agreed that the combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches would be most efficient and effective for promoting team-based care. All participants discussed implementation and provided suggestions for maintenance including organizational support, leadership, and CHW retention.

CONCLUSION

CHW-led ACP and proactive symptom management interventions are effective and accepted by cancer care professionals at scale. Tailoring on the basis of organization and local contexts is required to ensure successful adoption, implementation, and maintenance of these effective team-based care delivery approaches.

Effect of a Community Health Worker Intervention on Acute Care Use, Advance Care Planning, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Adults With Advanced Stages of Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Deficiencies in advance care planning and symptom management are associated with avoidable acute care use among patients with cancer. Community health worker (CHW)-led approaches may be an approach to reduce acute care use but remain untested in community settings.

Objective

To determine whether a CHW-led advance care planning and symptom screening intervention can reduce acute care use more than usual care in a community setting.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This randomized clinical trial was conducted among patients with newly diagnosed advanced-stage or recurrent solid and hematologic cancers from August 8, 2017, through November 30, 2021. Data analysis was performed November 30, 2021, through January 1, 2022, by intention to treat.

Interventions

Participants were randomized 1:1 to usual care (control group) or usual care with the 6-month CHW-led intervention (intervention group).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was acute care use. Secondary outcomes included advance care planning documentation, supportive care use, patient-reported outcomes, survival, and end-of-life care use.

Results

Among 128 participants, median (range) age was 67 (19-89) years; 61 (47.7%) were female; and 2 (1.6%) were American Indian or Alaska Native, 11 (8.6%) were Asian, 5 (3.9%) were Black, 23 (18.0%) were Hispanic or Latino, 2 (1.6%) were of mixed race, 2 (1.6%) were Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 86 (67.2%) were White, and 20 (15.6%) did not report race. Intervention participants had 62% lower risk of acute care use than the control (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.19-0.76) within 6 months. At 12 months, intervention participants had 17% lower odds of acute care use (odds ratio [OR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-0.98), 8 times the odds of advance care planning documentation (OR, 7.18; 95% CI, 2.85-18.13), 4 times the odds of palliative care (OR, 4.46; 95% CI, 1.88-10.55), nearly double the odds of hospice (OR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.16-2.88), and nearly double the odds of improved mental and emotional health from enrollment to 6 and 12 months postenrollment (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.03-3.28; and OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.04-4.65, respectively) than the control. There were no differences in the death (control, 26 [40.6%] vs intervention, 32 [50.0%]). Fewer intervention participants had acute care use (0 vs 6 [23.1%]) in the month before death than the control.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, integration of a CHW-led intervention into cancer care reduced acute care use and is one approach to improve cancer care delivery for patients with advanced stages of disease in community settings.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03154190.

Change agents in the oncology workforce: Let's be clear about community health workers and patient navigators

Despite efforts of professional organizations and government agencies to solidify the professional identities of community health workers and patient navigators in the oncology workforce, the scientific literature perpetuates wide variation in the nomenclature used to define these natural change agents, who have proven efficacy in improving access to quality cancer care for historically marginalized populations. To disseminate, sustain, and scale-up these life-saving roles in cancer care, the oncology field must come together now to adopt clear and consistent job titles and occupational identities.

Association of a Lay Health Worker-Led Intervention on Goals of Care, Quality of Life, and Clinical Trial Participation Among Low-Income and Minority Adults With Cancer

PURPOSE

New approaches are needed to overcome low supportive care and clinical trial participation among low-income and minority adults with cancer. The objective of this project was to determine whether a lay health worker intervention was associated with improvements in supportive care and trial participation.

METHODS

We conducted a quality improvement initiative in collaboration with a union organization. We enrolled union members newly diagnosed with cancer into a 6-month lay health worker-led intervention from October 15, 2016, to February 28, 2017. The primary outcome was goals of care. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQOL), health care use, and trial participation. All outcomes except HRQOL were compared with a cohort of union members diagnosed within the 6-month preintervention period.

RESULTS

Sixty-six adults participated in the intervention group, and we identified 72 adults in the control group. Demographic characteristics were similar between groups. The mean age was 56.0 years; 47 (34%) were male, and 22 were White (16%). Within 6 months enrollment, more intervention group participants, as compared with the control, had clinician-documented goals of care (94% v 26%; P < .001) and participated in cancer clinical trials (72% v 22%; P < .001). At 4 months postenrollment, as compared with baseline, intervention participants experienced HRQOL improvements (mean difference, 3.98 points; standard deviation, 2.83; P < .001). Before death, more intervention group participants used palliative care and hospice than the control group.

CONCLUSION

Lay health worker-led interventions may improve supportive care and clinical trial participation among low-income and minority populations with cancer.

Lay Health Workers' Perspectives on Delivery of Advance Care Planning and Symptom Screening Among Adults With Cancer: A Qualitative Study

INTRODUCTION

Advance care planning and symptom screening among patients with cancer require team-based approaches to ensure that these services are equitably and appropriately delivered. In several organizations across the United States, we trained and employed lay health workers (LHWs) to assist with delivering these services for patients with cancer. The aim of this study was to understand LHWs' views on delivering these services.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 LHWs in 6 US-based clinical cancer care settings in 4 large cities. We recorded, transcribed, and analyzed interviews using the constant comparative method of qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

Participants noted the importance of their role in assisting with the delivery of advance care planning (ACP) and symptom screening services. Participants noted the importance of developing relationships with patients to engage openly in ACP and symptom screening discussions. Participants reported that ongoing training provided skills and empowered them to discuss sensitive issues with patients and their caregivers. Participants described challenges in their roles including communication with oncology providers and their own emotional well-being. Participants identified solutions to these challenges including formal opportunities for introduction with oncology clinicians and staff and grievance sessions with LHWs and other team members.

DISCUSSION

LHWs from several organizations endorsed the importance of their roles in ensuring the delivery of ACP and proactive symptom screening. LHWs noted challenges and specific solutions to improve their effectiveness in delivering these important services to patients after their diagnosis of cancer.

Views From Patients With Cancer in the Setting of Unplanned Acute Care: Informing Approaches to Reduce Health Care Utilization

PURPOSE

New oncology care delivery models that avoid preventable acute care are needed, yet it is unclear which interventions best meet the needs of patients and caregivers. Perspectives from patients who experienced unplanned acute care events may inform the successful development and implementation of care delivery models.

METHODS

We performed a qualitative interview study of patients with solid tumors on active treatment who experienced the following 3 types of unplanned acute care events: emergency department visits, first hospitalizations, and multiple hospitalizations. Patients were prospectively recruited within a large academic health system from August 2018 to January 2019. Interviews followed a semi-structured guide developed from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. The constant comparative approach was used to identify themes.

RESULTS

Forty-nine patients were interviewed; 51% were men, 75% were non-Hispanic White, and the mean age was 57.4 years (standard deviation, 1.9 years). Fifty-five percent of patients had metastatic disease, and 33% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 3-4. We identified the following key themes: drivers of the decision to seek acute care, patients' emotional concerns that influence interactions with the oncology team, and strategies used to avoid acute care. Patients' recommendations for interventions included anticipatory guidance, peer support, improved triage methods, and enhanced symptom management. Patients preferred options for virtual and home-based outpatient care.

CONCLUSION

Patient-centered care models should focus on early delivery of supportive interventions that help patients and caregivers navigate the unexpected issues that come with cancer treatment. Patients advocate for proactive, multidisciplinary supportive interventions that enable home-based care and are led by the primary oncology team.

A Community-Partnered, Evidence-Based Approach to Improving Cancer Care Delivery for Low-Income and Minority Patients with Cancer

Community-engaged adaptations of evidence-based interventions are needed to improve cancer care delivery for low-income and minority populations with cancer. The objective of this study was to adapt an intervention to improve end-of-life cancer care delivery using a community-partnered approach. We used a two-step formative research process to adapt the evidence-based lay health workers educate engage and encourage patients to share (LEAPS) cancer care intervention. The first step involved obtaining a series of adaptations through focus groups with 15 patients, 12 caregivers, and 6 leaders and staff of the Unite Here Health (UHH) payer organization, and 12 primary care and oncology care providers. Focus group discussions were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using the constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. The second step involved finalization of adaptations from a community advisory board comprised of 4 patients, 2 caregivers, 4 oncology providers, 2 lay health workers and 4 UHH healthcare payer staff and executive leaders. Using this community-engaged approach, stakeholders identified critical barriers and solutions to intervention delivery which included: (1) expanding the intervention to ensure patient recruitment; (2) including caregivers; (3) regular communication between UHH staff, primary care and oncology providers; and (4) selecting outcomes that reflect patient-reported quality of life. This systematic and community-partnered approach to adapt an end-of-life cancer care intervention strengthened this existing intervention to promote the needs and preferences of patients, caregivers, providers, and healthcare payer leaders. This approach can be used to address cancer care delivery for low-income and minority patients with cancer.

A randomized trial of a multi-level intervention to improve advance care planning and symptom management among low-income and minority employees diagnosed with cancer in outpatient community settings

INTRODUCTION

Equitable delivery of advance care planning and symptom management among patients is crucial to improving cancer care. Existing interventions to improve the uptake of these services have predominantly occurred in clinic settings and are limited in their effectiveness, particularly among low-income and minority populations.

METHODS

The "Lay health worker Educates Engages and Activates Patients to Share (LEAPS)" intervention was developed to improve advance care planning and symptom management among low-income and minority hourly-wage workers with cancer, in two community settings. The intervention provides a lay health worker to all patients newly diagnosed with cancer and aims to educate and activate patients to engage in advance care planning and symptom management with their oncology providers. In this randomized clinical trial, we will evaluate the effect on quality of life (primary outcome) using the validated Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General Survey, at enrollment, 4- and 12- months post-enrollment. We will examine between-group differences on our secondary outcomes of patient activation, patient satisfaction with healthcare decision-making, and symptom burden (at enrollment, 4- and 12-months post-enrollment), and total healthcare use and healthcare costs (at 12-months post-enrollment).

DISCUSSION

Multilevel approaches are urgently needed to improve cancer care delivery among low-income and minority patients diagnosed with cancer in community settings. The current study describes the LEAPS intervention, the study design, and baseline characteristics of the community centers participating in the study. ClinicalTrials.gov Registration #NCT03699748.

Association of a Lay Health Worker Intervention With Symptom Burden, Survival, Health Care Use, and Total Costs Among Medicare Enrollees With Cancer

IMPORTANCE

Undertreated patient symptoms require approaches that improve symptom burden.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the association of a lay health worker-led symptom screening and referral intervention with symptom burden, survival, health care use, and total costs among Medicare Advantage enrollees with a new diagnosis of solid or hematologic malignant neoplasms.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This quality improvement study conducted at 9 community oncology practices from November 1, 2016, to October 31, 2018, compared newly diagnosed Medicare Advantage enrollees with solid or hematologic malignant neoplasms with patients diagnosed and treated 1 year prior. Analysis was conducted from August 1, 2019, to January 11, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Usual care augmented by a lay health worker trained to screen symptoms and refer patients to palliative care and behavioral medicine.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was change in symptoms using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale and the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire at baseline and 6 and 12 months after enrollment. Secondary outcomes were between-group comparison of survival, 12-month health care use, and costs.

RESULTS

Among 425 patients in the intervention group and 407 patients in the control group, the mean (SD) age was 78.8 (8.3) years, 345 (41.5%) were female, and 407 (48.9%) were non-Hispanic white. Patients in the intervention group experienced a lower symptom burden as measured by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale score over time compared with patients in the control group (mean [SD] difference, -1.9 [14.2]; 95% CI, -3.77 to -0.19; P = .01 for the intervention group and 2.32 [17.7]; 95% CI, 0.47 to 4.19; P = .02 for the control group). Similar findings were noted in 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire depression scores (mean [SD] difference, -0.63 [3.99]; 95% CI, -1.23 to -0.028; P = .04 for the intervention group and 1.67 [5.49]; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.37; P = .01 for the control group). Patients in the intervention group compared with patients in the control group had fewer mean (SD) inpatient visits (0.54 [0.77]; 95% CI, 0.47-0.61 vs 0.72 [1.12]; 95% CI, 0.61-0.83; P = .04) and emergency department visits (0.43 [0.76]; 95% CI, 0.36-0.50 vs 0.57 [1.00]; 95% CI, 0.48-0.67; P = .002) per 1000 patients per year and lower total costs (median, $17 869 [interquartile range, $6865-$32 540] vs median, $18 473 [interquartile range, $6415-$37 910]; P = .02). A total of 180 patients in the intervention group and 189 patients in the control group died within 12 months. Among those who died, patients in the intervention group had greater hospice use (125 of 180 [69.4%] vs 79 of 189 [41.8%]; odds ratio, 3.16; 95% CI, 2.13-4.69; P < .001), fewer mean (SD) emergency department and hospital visits (emergency department: 0.10 [0.30]; 95% CI, 0.06-0.14 vs 0.30 [0.46]; 95% CI, 0.24-0.38; P = .001; hospital: 0.27 [0.44]; 95% CI, 0.21-0.34 vs 0.43 [0.82]; 95% CI, 0.32-0.55; P = .02), and lower costs (median, $3602 [interquartile range, $1076-$9436] vs median, $12 726 [interquartile range, $5259-$22 170]; P = .002), but there was no significant difference in inpatient deaths (18 of 180 [10.0%] vs 30 of 189 [15.9%]; P = .14).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study suggests that a lay health worker-led intervention may be one way to improve burdensome and costly care.

Lay Health Worker-Led Cancer Symptom Screening Intervention and the Effect on Patient-Reported Satisfaction, Health Status, Health Care Use, and Total Costs: Results From a Tri-Part Collaboration

PURPOSE

Poor patient experiences and increasing costs from undertreated symptoms require approaches that improve patient-reported outcomes and lower expenditures. We developed and evaluated the effect of a lay health worker (LHW)-led symptom screening intervention on satisfaction, self-reported overall and mental health, health care use, total costs, and survival.

METHODS

From November 1, 2015, to September 30, 2016, we enrolled in this study all newly diagnosed Medicare Advantage enrollees with stage 3 or 4 solid tumors or hematologic malignancies who were receiving care in a community oncology practice. We evaluated symptom changes from baseline to 12 months for the intervention group. We compared with a control group (a historical cohort of Medicare Advantage enrollees diagnosed with cancer from November 1, 2014, to October 31, 2015) changes in satisfaction and overall and mental health with validated assessments at diagnosis and 5 months postdiagnosis, 12-month health care use, total costs, and survival.

RESULTS

Among 186 patients in the intervention group and 102 in the control group, most were female and non-Hispanic white or Hispanic, and the mean age was 79 years. There were no survival differences between the groups. Relative to the control group, the intervention group experienced improvements in satisfaction with care (difference-in-difference: 1.35; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.63), overall health (odds ratio, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.49 to 3.32), and mental or emotional health (odds ratio, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.46 to 3.38) over time; fewer hospitalizations (mean ± standard deviation: 0.72 ± 0.96 v 1.02 ± 1.44; P = .03) and emergency department visits per 1,000 members per year (0.61 ± 0.98 v 0.92 ± 1.53; P = .03), and lower median (interquartile range) total health care costs ($21,266 [$8,102-$47,900] v $31,946 [$15,754-$57,369]; P = .02).

CONCLUSION

An LHW-led symptom screening intervention could be one solution to improve value-based cancer care.

Effect of a Lay Health Worker Intervention on Goals-of-Care Documentation and on Health Care Use, Costs, and Satisfaction Among Patients With Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Although lay health workers (LHWs) improve cancer screening and treatment adherence, evidence on whether they can enhance other aspects of care is limited.

Objective

To determine whether an LHW program can increase documentation of patients' care preferences after cancer diagnosis.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Randomized clinical trial conducted from August 13, 2013, through February 2, 2015, among 213 patients with stage 3 or 4 or recurrent cancer at the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System. Data analysis was by intention to treat and performed from January 15 to August 18, 2017.

Interventions

Six-month program with an LHW trained to assist patients with establishing end-of-life care preferences vs usual care.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was documentation of goals of care. Secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction on the Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems "satisfaction with provider" item (on a scale of 0 [worst] to 10 [best possible]), health care use, and costs.

Results

Among the 213 participants randomized and included in the intention-to-treat analysis, the mean (SD) age was 69.3 (9.1) years, 211 (99.1%) were male, and 165 (77.5%) were of non-Hispanic white race/ethnicity. Within 6 months of enrollment, patients randomized to the intervention had greater documentation of goals of care than the control group (97 [92.4%] vs 19 [17.5%.]; P < .001) and larger increases in satisfaction with care on the Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems "satisfaction with provider" item (difference-in-difference, 1.53; 95% CI, 0.67-2.41; P < .001). The number of patients who died within 15 months of enrollment did not differ between groups (intervention, 60 of 105 [57.1%] vs control, 60 of 108 [55.6%]; P = .68). In the 30 days before death, patients in the intervention group had greater hospice use (46 [76.7%] vs 29 [48.3%]; P = .002), fewer emergency department visits (mean [SD], 0.05 [0.22] vs 0.60 [0.76]; P < .001), fewer hospitalizations (mean [SD], 0.05 [0.22] vs 0.50 [0.62]; P < .001), and lower costs (median [interquartile range], $1048 [$331-$8522] vs $23 482 [$9708-$55 648]; P < .001) than patients in the control group.

Conclusions and Relevance

Incorporating an LHW into cancer care increases goals-of-care documentation and patient satisfaction and reduces health care use and costs at the end of life.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02966509.

End-of-Life Cancer Care Redesign: Patient and Caregiver Experiences in a Lay Health Worker-Led Intervention

IMPORTANCE

The Engagement of Patients with Advanced Cancer (EPAC), comprised of a lay health worker (LHW) who assists patients with advance care planning, is an effective intervention for improving patient experiences and reducing acute care use and total health-care costs. The objective of this study was to assess patients' and caregivers' experiences with the intervention.

METHODS

We invited all patients enrolled in EPAC and their caregivers to complete an 8-item survey at the end of the intervention and a random 35% sample to participate in a qualitative interview to assess their experiences. At 15-month follow-up, we invited all caregivers of patients who died during the study to participate in a qualitative interview. We analyzed survey responses using bivariate methods and recorded, transcribed, and analyzed interviews using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine patients were alive at completion of the intervention and all 30 identified caregivers completed the survey. All viewed the intervention as a critical part of cancer care and recommended the intervention for other patients. In qualitative interviews, among 30 patients, all reported improved comfort in discussing their end-of-life care preferences. In qualitative interviews with 24 bereaved caregivers, all viewed the intervention as critical in ensuring that their loved ones' wishes were adhered to at the end of life.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Incorporating an LHW into end-of-life cancer care is an approach supported and viewed as highly effective in improving care by patients and caregivers. The LHW-led EPAC intervention is one solution that can significantly impact patient and caregiver experiences.

Perspectives of Health Care Payer Organizations on Cancer Care Delivery Redesign: A National Study

INTRODUCTION

Despite advancements in cancer care, persistent gaps remain in the delivery of high-value end-of-life cancer care. The aim of this study was to examine views of health care payer organization stakeholders on approaches to the redesign of end-of-life cancer care delivery strategies to improve care.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews with 34 key stakeholders (eg, chief medical officers, medical directors) in 12 health plans and 22 medical group organizations across the United States. We recorded, transcribed, and analyzed interviews using the constant comparative method of qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

Participants endorsed strategies to redesign end-of-life cancer care delivery to improve end-of-life care. Participants supported the use of nonprofessionals to deliver some cancer services through alternative formats (eg, telephone, Internet) and delivery of services in nonclinical settings. Participants reported that using nonprofessional providers to offer some services, such as goals of care discussions and symptom assessments, via telephone in community-based settings or in patients' homes, may be more effective and efficient ways to deliver high-value cancer care services. Participants described challenges to redesign, including coordination with and acceptance by oncology providers and payment models required to financially support clinical changes. Some participants suggested solutions, including providing funding and logistic support to encourage implementation of care delivery innovations and to financially reward practices for delivery of high-value end-of-life cancer care services.

CONCLUSION

Stakeholders from payer organizations endorsed opportunities to redesign cancer care delivery, and some are willing to provide logistic, design, and financial support to practices interested in improving end-of-life cancer care.

Delivering End-of-Life Cancer Care: Perspectives of Providers

OBJECTIVES

Persistent gaps in end-of-life cancer care delivery and growing associated expenditures remain imminent US public health issues. The objective of this study was to understand clinical providers' experiences delivering cancer care for patients at the end of life and their perspectives on potential solutions to improve quality of care.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with 75 cancer care providers across the United States. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using constant comparative method of qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

Providers identified 3 major cancer care delivery challenges including lack of time to educate patients and caregivers due to clinical volume and administrative burdens, ambiguity in determining both prognosis and timing of palliative care at the end-of-life, and lack of adequate systems to support non-face-to-face communication with patients. To address these challenges, providers endorsed several options for clinical practice redesign in their settings. These include use of a lay health worker to assist in addressing early advance care planning, proactive non-face-to-face communication with patients specifically regarding symptom management, and community and in-home delivery of cancer care services.

DISCUSSION

Specific strategies for cancer care redesign endorsed by health-care providers may be used to create interventions that can more efficiently and effectively address gaps in end-of-life cancer care.

Redesigning Cancer Care Delivery: Views From Patients and Caregivers

INTRODUCTION

Cancer is a leading cause of death in the United States. Although treatments have improved, patients and caregivers continue to report significant gaps in their care. The objective of this study was to examine the views of patients and caregivers on their experiences with current cancer care delivery and identify key strategies to improve the delivery of care.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with 75 patients and 45 caregivers across the United States. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using constant comparative method of qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

Participants reported multiple gaps in care delivery, including barriers in health communication with health care providers, lack of elucidation of care goals, lack of care coordination, and challenges in accessing care. Participants identified that greater use of nonphysician providers and alternative formats, such as telephone-based care and home and community-based care, would narrow these gaps.

CONCLUSION

Understanding patients' and caregivers' experiences with gaps in cancer care delivery can inform cancer care delivery redesign efforts and lead to targeted interventions that result in patient-centered and family-oriented care.