Achieving Coordinated Care for Patients With Complex Cases of Cancer: A Multiteam System Approach

Patient history of cancer in primary care: a closer look among cancer survivors with chronic conditions in federally qualified health centers

PURPOSE

The prevalence of cancer among patients accessing primary care in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) is poorly characterized. A patient's history of cancer in addition to common chronic conditions makes providing comprehensive primary care more complex, especially for patients accessing care at FQHCs who often face additional social and economic barriers to care.

METHODS

Trained auditors conducted a comprehensive electronic medical record audit using a standardized abstraction form to identify cancer history in patients aged ≥ 40 years with two common chronic conditions (diabetes and/or hypertension) and who had at least one visit to an FQHC between January 1 and December 31, 2019. Descriptive statistics were performed.

RESULTS

Among 712 adult patients with diabetes and/or hypertension, 46 (6.46%) had a documented history of cancer. For the majority of cancer patients (67.4%), cancer information was documented in the "Problem List" section of their medical record.

CONCLUSION

Our study revealed a higher prevalence of cancer in FQHC primary care records than previously reported. Future research should examine whether readily accessible cancer history information in primary care records could enhance comprehensive care delivery for all chronic conditions, including cancer.

Managing medications for patients with cancer and chronic conditions: It's time for collaboration between primary care and oncology pharmacists

OBJECTIVE

To provide a rationale for a collaborative care model involving oncology and primary care pharmacists to improve the coordination of care of medications for cancer patients with multiple chronic conditions.

DATA SOURCES

A review of selected literature and the authors' own research was used. Studies illustrating the gaps in care for medications and pharmacists' roles in oncology and primary care settings from PubMed were reviewed.

DATA SUMMARY

There has been a substantial increase in the development and utilization of oral anticancer agents (OAAs). Although OAAs offer convenience and flexibility, they also introduce challenges related to medication adherence, monitoring, and managing side effects. Up to 17.5% of patients experience moderate to severe symptoms from OAAs and about 30% report less than excellent medication adherence. Further, studies showed that 30% to 53% of adult cancer patients have at least one chronic condition that complicates their treatment plan due to the need for medications, increasing the risk of drug interactions, side effects, and non-adherence. The Primary Care Oncology Model (PCOM) incorporates both primary care and oncology pharmacists with comprehensive medication review and patient-reported outcome measure, respectively, to enhance medication appropriateness and effectiveness, and improve overall patient experience.

CONCLUSION

Implementing PCOM may improve the medication management of patients taking OAAs for active cancer treatment and chronic medications for their multiple chronic conditions. This collaborative approach can transform patient care by leveraging the expertise of both primary care and oncology pharmacists.

Integrated care among patients with kidney or urinary bladder cancer: An NCI patterns-of-care analysis

INTRODUCTION

Cancer patients often have complex medical needs from diagnosis to survivorship/end-of-life care. Integrated care, including care coordination, multidisciplinary rounds, and supportive care services, is crucial for high-quality cancer care. Yet, factors influencing integrated care receipt are not well understood. This study describes patterns of integrated care among individuals diagnosed with kidney or urinary bladder cancer and examines patient- and hospital-level factors associated with these services.

METHODS

Analyzing 2019 National Cancer Institute Patterns-of-Care data, we assessed integrated care service receipt among stage I to IV kidney and stage 0a to IVb urinary bladder cancer patients aged ≥ 20 years using a stratified Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry sample. Integrated care services within 12 months postdiagnosis were identified by medical record abstraction. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified patient, clinical, and hospital-level factors significantly associated with receipt of integrated care.

RESULTS

Significant variations in receiving integrated care were observed based on insurance status; uninsured patients less likely to receive these services. Racial/ethnic differences were also noted, as non-Hispanic white patients had higher likelihoods of receiving integrated care. Stage IV kidney cancer patients were 2.63 times [1.44-4.79] more likely to receive integrated care than stage I patients. Treatment characteristics and hospital-level factors appeared to have minimal impact on receiving these services.

CONCLUSION

The lower likelihood of receiving integrated care among patients with no insurance and among certain racial/ethnic groups underscores gaps in equitable access to patient-centered cancer care. Future research should include patient perspectives to enhance understanding of unmet needs and influencing factors related to integrated care services.

Evolution of community outreach and engagement at National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers, an evolving journey

Cancer mortality rates have declined during the last 28 years, but that process is not equitably shared. Disparities in cancer outcomes by race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation and gender identity, and geographic location persist across the cancer care continuum. Consequently, community outreach and engagement (COE) efforts within National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Center (NCI-DCC) catchment areas have intensified during the last 10 years as has the emphasis on COE and catchment areas in NCI's Cancer Center Support Grant applications. This review article attempts to provide a historic perspective of COE within NCI-DCCs. Improving COE has long been an important initiative for the NCI, but it was not until 2012 and 2016 that NCI-DCCs were required to define their catchment areas rigorously and to provide specific descriptions of COE interventions, respectively. NCI-DCCs had previously lacked adequate focus on the inclusion of historically marginalized patients in cancer innovation efforts. Integrating COE efforts throughout the research and operational aspects of the cancer centers, at both the patient and community levels, will expand the footprint of COE efforts within NCI-DCCs. Achieving this change requires sustained commitment by the centers to adjust their activities and improve access and outcomes for historically marginalized communities.

Exploring the impact of primary care utilization and health information exchange upon treatment patterns and clinical outcomes of glioblastoma patients

PURPOSE

There is limited literature describing care coordination for patients with glioblastoma (GBM). We aimed to investigate the impact of primary care and electronic health information exchange (HIE) between neurosurgeons, oncologists, and primary care providers (PCP) on GBM treatment patterns, postoperative outcomes, and survival.

METHODS

We identified adult GBM patients undergoing primary resection at our institution (2007-2020). HIE was defined as shared electronic medical information between PCPs, oncologists, and neurosurgeons. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine the effect of PCPs and HIE upon initiation and completion of adjuvant therapy. Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox regression models were used to evaluate overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Among 374 patients (mean age ± SD: 57.7 ± 13.5, 39.0% female), 81.0% had a PCP and 62.4% had electronic HIE. In multivariate analyses, having a PCP was associated with initiation (OR: 7.9, P < 0.001) and completion (OR: 4.4, P < 0.001) of 6 weeks of concomitant chemoradiation, as well as initiation (OR: 4.0, P < 0.001) and completion (OR: 3.0, P = 0.007) of 6 cycles of maintenance temozolomide thereafter. Having a PCP (median OS [95%CI]: 14.6[13.1-16.1] vs. 10.8[8.2-13.3] months, P = 0.005) and HIE (15.40[12.82-17.98] vs. 13.80[12.51-15.09] months, P = 0.029) were associated with improved OS relative to counterparts in Kaplan-Meier analysis and in multivariate Cox regression analysis (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.7, [95% CI] 0.5-1.0, P = 0.048). In multivariate analyses, chemoradiation (HR = 0.34, [95% CI] 0.2-0.7, P = 0.002) and maintenance temozolomide (HR = 0.5, 95%CI 0.3-0.8, P = 0.002) were associated with improved OS relative to counterparts.

CONCLUSION

Effective care coordination between neurosurgeons, oncologists, and PCPs may offer a modifiable avenue to improve GBM outcomes.

Factors influencing implementation of a care coordination intervention for cancer survivors with multiple comorbidities in a safety-net system: an application of the Implementation Research Logic Model

BACKGROUND

Under- and uninsured cancer survivors have significant medical, social, and economic complexity. For these survivors, effective care coordination between oncology and primary care teams is critical for high-quality, comprehensive care. While evidence-based interventions exist to improve coordination between healthcare teams, testing implementation of these interventions for cancer survivors seen in real-world safety-net settings has been limited. This study aimed to (1) identify factors influencing implementation of a multicomponent care coordination intervention (nurse coordinator plus patient registry) focused on cancer survivors with multiple comorbidities in an integrated safety-net system and (2) identify mechanisms through which the factors impacted implementation outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews (patients, providers, and system leaders), structured observations of primary care and oncology operations, and document analysis during intervention implementation between 2016 and 2020. The practice change model (PCM) guided data collection to identify barriers and facilitators of implementation; the PCM, Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, and Implementation Research Logic Model guided four immersion/crystallization data analysis and synthesis cycles to identify mechanisms and assess outcomes. Implementation outcomes included appropriateness, acceptability, adoption, and penetration.

RESULTS

The intervention was appropriate and acceptable to primary care and oncology teams based on reported patient needs and resources and the strength of the evidence supporting intervention components. Active and sustained partnership with system leaders facilitated these outcomes. There was limited adoption and penetration early in implementation because the study was narrowly focused on just breast and colorectal cancer patients. This created barriers to real-world practice where patients with all cancer types receive care. Over time, flexibility intentionally designed into intervention implementation facilitated adoption and penetration. Regular feedback from system partners and rapid cycles of implementation and evaluation led to real-time adaptations increasing adoption and penetration.

DISCUSSION

Evidence-based interventions to coordinate care for underserved cancer survivors across oncology and primary care teams can be implemented successfully when system leaders are actively engaged and with flexibility in implementation embedded intentionally to continuously facilitate adoption and penetration across the health system.

Importance of primary care for underserved cancer patients with multiple chronic conditions

PURPOSE

To understand the impact of pre-existing conditions on healthcare utilization among under- and uninsured patients in the transition from cancer treatment to post-treatment survivorship.

METHODS

Using electronic health record data, we constructed a cohort of patients seen in an integrated county health system between 1/1/2010 and 12/31/2016. Six hundred thirty-one adult patients diagnosed with non-metastatic breast or colorectal cancer during this period (cases) were matched 1:1 on sex and Charlson comorbidity index to non-cancer patients who had at least two chronic conditions and with at least one visit to the health system during the study period (controls). Conditional fixed effects Poisson regression models compared number of primary care and emergency department (ED) visits and completed [vs. no show or missed] appointments between cancer and non-cancer patients.

RESULTS

Cancer patients had significantly lower number of visits compared with non-cancer patients (N = 46,965 vs. 85,038). Cancer patients were less likely to have primary care (IRR = 0.25; 95% CI: 0.24, 0.27) and ED visits (IRR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.50, 0.64) but more likely to complete a scheduled appointment (AOR = 4.83; 95% CI: 4.32, 5.39) compared with non-cancer patients. Cancer patients seen in primary care at a higher rate were more likely to visit the ED (IRR = 2.06; 95% CI: 1.52, 2.80) than those seen in primary care at a lower rate.

CONCLUSION

Health systems need to find innovative, effective solutions to increase primary care utilization among cancer patients with chronic care conditions to ensure optimal management of both chronic conditions and cancer.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Maintaining regular connections with primary care providers during active cancer treatment should be promoted.

Associations between healthcare costs and care experiences among older adults with and without cancer

INTRODUCTION

Care coordination and patient-provider communication are important for older adults with cancer, as they likely have additional, non-cancer chronic conditions requiring consultation across multiple providers. Suboptimal care coordination and patient-provider communication can lead to costly and preventable adverse outcomes. This study examines Medicare expenditures associated with patient-reported care coordination and patient-provider communication among older adults with and without cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We explore SEER-CAHPS® (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) linked data for differences in health care expenditures by care coordination and patient-provider communication experiences for beneficiaries with and without cancer. The cancer cohort included beneficiaries with ten prevalent cancer types diagnosed 2011-2019 at least six months before completing a CAHPS survey. Medicare expenditures were abstracted from Medicare claims data. Care coordination and patient-provider communication composite scores (range 0-100, higher scores indicate better experiences) were patient-reported in the CAHPS® survey. We estimated expenditure differences per one-point change in composite scores for patients with and without cancer.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 16,778 matched beneficiaries with and without a previously diagnosed cancer (N = 33,556). Higher care coordination and patient-provider communication scores were inversely associated with Medicare expenditures among beneficiaries with and without cancer in the six months prior to survey response, ranging from -$83 (standard error [SE] = $7) to -$90 (SE = $6) per month. Six months post-survey, expenditures estimates ranging -$88 (SE = $6) to -$106 (SE = $8) were found.

DISCUSSION

We found that lower Medicare expenditures were associated with higher care coordination and patient-provider communication scores. As the number of survivors living longer both with and beyond their cancer grows, addressing their multifaceted care and improving outcomes will be critical.

Risk Management Activities in a Lung Cancer Multidisciplinary Team at a Comprehensive Cancer Center: Results of a Prospective Analysis

PURPOSE

The objective of the study was to highlight sources of harm that could negatively affect the lung cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT) activities to reduce the level of risk of each factor.

METHODS

A modified Delphi approach was used by a board of multi-health care professionals of the lung cancer MDT to identify the main processes, subprocesses, and risk factors of the multidisciplinary pathway of patients with lung cancer. A semiquantitative matrix was built with a five-point scale for probability of harm (likelihood) and severity of harm (consequences) according to the international risk management standards (ISO 31000-2018). The risk level was calculated by multiplying likelihood × consequences. Mitigation strategies have been identified and applied by the MDT to reduce risks to acceptable levels.

RESULTS

Three main processes (outpatient specialist visit, MDT discussion, and MDT program implementation), eight related subprocesses, and 16 risk factors were identified. Four risk factors (25%) were related to outpatient specialist visit, seven (43.75%) to case discussion, and five (31.25%) to program implementation. Overall, two risk factors were assigned a low-risk level (12.5%), 11 a moderate-risk level (68.75%), one (6.25%) a high-risk level, and two (12.5%) a very high-risk level. After the implementation of mitigation measures, the new semiquantitative risk analysis showed a reduction in almost all hazardous situations: two risk factors (12.5%) were given a very low level, six (37.5%) a low level, seven (43.75%) a moderate level, and one (6.25%) a very high level.

CONCLUSION

An interdisciplinary risk assessment analysis is applicable to MDT activities by using an ad hoc risk matrix: if the hazard is identified and monitored, the risk could be reduced and managed in a short time.

Making Every Meeting Count: A Qualitative Investigation of Multiteam Meeting Events and Their Role in Supporting Coordinated Cancer Care Delivery

PURPOSE

This research considers how cross-disciplinary cancer care meetings can facilitate coordination within the multiteam systems (MTSs) that provide inpatient hospital care. We conducted a series of interviews and observations with members of a single cancer care MTS to address the following research questions: (1) what are the key characteristics of MTS cancer care meetings (with regard to composition, focus, and structure)? and (2) how is cross-team coordination acknowledged and addressed during these meetings?

METHODS

In this single-site case study of a MTS operating to provide gynecologic oncology care within a teaching hospital, two types of meetings, called rounds and huddles, were held consistently. We used qualitative methods, including interviews with health care professional subject matter experts and 30 hours of observations of cancer care meetings, and analyzed the data in three stages of qualitative coding.

RESULTS

Our analyses resulted in a thematic framework detailing key processes, and subprocesses, identified as central to the activities of observed cancer care meetings. Key processes include information sharing, gaining clarity, strategizing, and pedagogy. Discussions and explanations of this framework showcase the ways in which MTS meetings can bolster cross-team coordination and facilitate MTS activities.

CONCLUSION

Inpatient cancer care meetings provide opportunities to facilitate MTS coordination in several ways, yet doing so does not come without challenges. Considering these results together with insights from meeting science and MTS research, this article concludes by putting forward practical recommendations for leveraging opportunities and overcoming challenges to use cancer care meetings as tools to support cross-team coordination.

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.

Medication Adherence Among Adults With Comorbid Chronic Conditions Initiating Oral Anticancer Agent Therapy for Multiple Myeloma

PURPOSE:

Increased use of oral anticancer agents (OAAs) has empowered adults with multiple myeloma (MM) to manage their oncolytic therapy, but such a shift may result in issues with medication use, particularly among patients being concurrently treated for pre-existing, multiple chronic conditions.

METHODS:

This retrospective cohort study used 2013-2018 commercial and Medicare claims data to assess medication use in adults with MM. To be included, adults (18 years and older) must have been diagnosed with and had 2+ claims for an OAA, had continuous enrollment for 12 months before and after OAA initiation, and have been previously diagnosed with and had prescription fills for 2+ select chronic conditions. The proportion of days covered metric assessed medication adherence and was compared for 12 months before and after the OAA initiation by Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, McNemar's tests, and difference-in-differences models.

RESULTS:

The mean OAA adherence in the first year of therapy was 58.3% (standard deviation: 24.5) and 65.1% (standard deviation: 27.01) for commercial and Medicare patients, respectively. Adherence and the proportion adherent (proportion of days covered ≥ 80%) to comorbid therapies generally declined in the first year after OAA initiation. Changes in medication use were particularly noticeable among those on antihypertensive therapy: adjusted analyses uncovered a 2.5% (Medicare) and 5.2% (commercial) difference in adherence to these medications between those initially adherent and nonadherent to OAA therapy (both P < .05).

CONCLUSION:

Initiating OAA therapy in adults with MM may complicate an already complex treatment regimen, resulting in poor overall medication adherence in patients with multiple comorbid conditions.

Hospital Surgical Volume Is Poorly Correlated With Delivery of Multimodal Treatment for Localized Pancreatic Cancer

Using Donabedian’s quality of care model, this study assessed process (hospital multimodal treatment) and structure (hospital surgical case volume) measures to evaluate localized pancreatic cancer outcomes.

Healthcare Utilization and Comorbidity in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

PURPOSE

Age-related comorbidity is highly prevalent in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The purpose of this study was to provide information on current patterns of healthcare utilization in CLL.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We used data from Danish nation-wide registers to study healthcare utilization the year before and the year after CLL diagnosis and in relation to first-line treatment. Patients diagnosed with CLL between 1997 and 2018 were included and stratified on number of comorbidities, presence of specific comorbidities, and fitness status, respectively. Healthcare utilization was studied in terms of hospital admissions, in-hospital bed days, out-patient visits, emergency room visits, and prescription drugs. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using multivariable logistic regression analyses adjusting for age, sex, and calendar year.

RESULTS

The study comprised 9170 patients with CLL with a median age of 71 years, of whom 35% had ≥1 comorbidity. Healthcare utilization increased markedly upon CLL diagnosis both in patients with and without comorbidities. During the year after CLL diagnosis, 39% were hospitalized, 16% visited an emergency room, 88% visited an out-patient clinic, and 93% received prescription drugs. Both individual comorbidities and the total number of comorbidities were associated with increased healthcare utilization of all types, except for contacts to hematological departments.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that CLL diagnosis may unveil incipient diseases and aggravate comorbidities and thereby have considerably wider health implications than those directly related to CLL. These findings may be used by clinicians and decisions makers to guide planning of multidisciplinary care for cancer patients.

Understanding the Delivery of Patient-Centered Survivorship Care Planning: An Exploratory Interview Study With Complex Cancer Survivors

Introduction:

Understanding key elements of the survivorship care planning process, such as patient-centered communication (PCC) and health self-efficacy, are critical for delivering patient-centered survivorship care to cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions (“complex cancer survivors”). Building upon our team’s recent research efforts to examine the survivorship care planning process from a patient-centered lens, this exploratory study leveraged an ongoing quasi-experimental trial to elucidate the experience of complex cancer survivors with survivorship care planning and post-treatment management.

Methods:

We conducted a hypothesis-generating thematic content analysis on 8 interview transcripts.

Results:

Survivors reported positive experiences communicating with their oncology care team but the presence of multiple chronic conditions in addition to cancer creates additional barriers to patient-centered survivorship care.

Conclusion:

These findings support the need for further in-depth research aimed at improving PCC across all care teams and enabling self-management by delivering more personalized survivorship care planning that aligns with survivor’s needs, values, and preferences.

Integrating a Disease-Focused Tumor Board as a Delivery-of-Care Model to Expedite Treatment Initiation for Patients With Liver Malignancies

BACKGROUND

Patients with hepatobiliary malignancies are especially vulnerable to treatment delays. This study sought to evaluate the impact of implementing a new delivery-of-care model centered around a hepatobiliary multidisciplinary tumor board (HB-MTB) and integrated with an optimized patient workflow process to expedite treatment initiation.

METHODS

A hybrid type 2 study (effectiveness-implementation) was performed. Implementation measures were examined prospectively using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) approach during 5 years after the HB-MTB program deployment (2015-2020). The primary outcome was effectiveness, measured as time to treatment initiation (TTI) using a before and after design (1 year each). The patients were grouped into before (BP) and after (AP) categories based on date of HB-MTB program implementation. Multivariable Cox and linear regression analyses were performed to examine and compare time to treatment initiation between groups.

RESULTS

The HB-MTB program enrolled 2457 patients (reach). The RE-AIM measures were favorable and improved over time (P < 0.01 for all). The median TTI was lower for the AP group than for the BP group (17 vs 24 days; P < 0.01). In the multivariable Cox and linear regressions, treatment in the AP group was associated with a faster TTI (hazard ratio, 1.75; 95 % confidence interval, 1.31-2.35; p < 0.01), and a mean of 13 days faster treatment initiation than the BP group (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of an HB-MTB program integrated with an optimized patient workflow was successful and led to faster treatment initiation. This delivery-of-care model can serve as a blueprint to expedite treatment of patients with cancer.

Thematic Analysis of Challenges of Care Coordination for Underinsured and Uninsured Cancer Survivors With Chronic Conditions

IMPORTANCE

Although a majority of underinsured and uninsured patients with cancer have multiple comorbidities, many lack consistent connections with a primary care team to manage chronic conditions during and after cancer treatment. This presents a major challenge to delivering high-quality comprehensive and coordinated care.

OBJECTIVE

To describe challenges and opportunities for coordinating care in an integrated safety-net system for patients with both cancer and other chronic conditions.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This multimodal qualitative study was conducted from May 2016 to July 2019 at a county-funded, vertically integrated safety-net health system including ambulatory oncology, urgent care, primary care, and specialty care. Participants were 93 health system stakeholders (clinicians, leaders, clinical, and administrative staff) strategically and snowball sampled for semistructured interviews and observation during meetings and daily processes of care. Data collection and analysis were conducted iteratively using a grounded theory approach, followed by systematic thematic analysis to organize data, review, and interpret comprehensive findings. Data were analyzed from March 2019 to March 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Multilevel factors associated with experiences of coordinating care for patients with cancer and chronic conditions among oncology and primary care stakeholders.

RESULTS

Among interviews and observation of 93 health system stakeholders, system-level factors identified as being associated with care coordination included challenges to accessing primary care, lack of communication between oncology and primary care clinicians, and leadership awareness of care coordination challenges. Clinician-level factors included unclear role delineation and lack of clinician knowledge and preparedness to manage the effects of cancer and chronic conditions.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Primary care may play a critical role in delivering coordinated care for patients with cancer and chronic diseases. This study's findings suggest a need for care delivery strategies that bridge oncology and primary care by enhancing communication, better delineating roles and responsibilities across care teams, and improving clinician knowledge and preparedness to care for patients with cancer and chronic conditions. Expanding timely access to primary care is also key, albeit challenging in resource-limited safety-net settings.

Eliciting primary care and oncology provider perspectives on diabetes management during active cancer treatment

PURPOSE

We sought to elicit the perspectives of primary care providers (PCPs) and oncologists regarding their expectations on who should be responsible for diabetes management, as well as communication mode and frequency about diabetes care during cancer treatment.

METHODS

In-depth interviews were conducted with PCPs (physicians and nurse practitioners) and oncologists who treat cancer patients with type 2 diabetes. Interviews were audio-recorded and professionally transcribed. A grounded theory approach was used to analyze the qualitative data and identify key themes.

RESULTS

Ten PCPs and ten oncologists were interviewed between March and July 2019. Two broad themes emerged from our interviews with PCPs: (1) cancer patients pausing primary care during cancer treatments, and (2) patients with poorer prognoses and advanced cancer. The following theme emerged from our interviews with oncologists: (3) challenges in caring for cancer patients with uncontrolled diabetes. Three common themes emerged from our interviews with both PCPs and oncologists: (4) discomfort with providing care outside of respective specialty, (5) the need to individualize care plans, and (6) lack of communication across primary and oncology care.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that substantial barriers to optimal diabetes management during cancer care exist at the provider level. Interventions prioritizing effective communication and educational resources among PCPs, oncologists, and additional members of the patients' care team should be prioritized to achieve optimal outcomes.

Assume It Will Break: Parental Perspectives on Negative Communication Experiences in Pediatric Oncology

PURPOSE

Communication breakdowns in pediatric oncology can have negative consequences for patients and families. A detailed analysis of these negative encounters will support clinicians in anticipating and responding to communication breakdowns.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews with 80 parents of children with cancer across three academic medical centers during treatment, survivorship, or bereavement. We analyzed transcripts using semantic content analysis.

RESULTS

Nearly all parents identified negative communication experiences (n = 76). We identified four categories of contributors to negative experiences: individual (n = 68), team (n = 26), organization (n = 46), and greater health care system (n = 8). These experiences involved a variety of health care professionals across multiple specialties. Parents reported 12 personal consequences of communication breakdowns: emotional distress (n = 65), insufficient understanding (n = 48), decreased trust or confidence (n = 37), inconvenience (n = 36), medical harm (n = 23), decreased self-confidence (n = 17), decreased emotional support (n = 13), decreased engagement (n = 9), false hope (n = 9), decreased hope (n = 7), financial insult (n = 7), and decreased access to resources (n = 3). We identified five categories of supportive responses from clinicians: exploring (n = 8), acknowledging (n = 17), informing (n = 27), adapting (n = 27), and advocating (n = 18). Parents often increased their own advocacy on behalf of their child (n = 47). Parents also identified the need for parental engagement in finding solutions (n = 12). Finally, one parent suggested that clinicians should assume that communication will fail and develop contingency plans in advance.

CONCLUSION

Communication breakdowns in pediatric oncology negatively affect parents and children. Clinicians should plan for communication breakdowns and respond by exploring, acknowledging, informing, adapting, advocating, and engaging parents in finding solutions.

Implementation of Cardiac Stereotactic Radiotherapy: From Literature to the Linac

Stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) has been applied to treat cardiac arrhythmias, but our institution had not yet implemented this technique. Here, we explain how we used implementation science and knowledge translation to provide cardiac SBRT to a critically ill patient with malignancy-associated refractory ventricular tachycardia. We reviewed the critical factors that enabled the implementation of this urgent treatment, such as the context of the implementation, the characteristics of the intervention, and the stakeholders. These principles can be used by other radiation programs to implement novel treatments in urgent settings, where the gold standard process of planning and developing policies and protocols is not possible.

Using a Twitter Chat to Rapidly Identify Barriers and Policy Solutions for Metastatic Breast Cancer Care: Qualitative Study

Background

Real-time, rapid assessment of barriers to care experienced by patients can be used to inform relevant health care legislation. In recent years, online communities have become a source of support for patients as well as a vehicle for discussion and collaboration among patients, clinicians, advocates, and researchers. The Breast Cancer Social Media (#BCSM) community has hosted weekly Twitter chats since 2011. Topics vary each week, and chats draw a diverse group of participants. Partnering with the #BCSM community, we used Twitter to gather data on barriers to care for patients with metastatic breast cancer and potential policy solutions. Metastatic breast cancer survival rates are low and in large part conditioned by time-sensitive access to care factors that might be improved through policy changes.

Objective

This study was part of an assessment of the barriers to care for metastatic breast cancer with the goal of offering policy solutions for the legislative session in California.

Methods

We provided 5 questions for a chat specific to metastatic breast cancer care barriers and potential policy solutions. These were discussed during the course of a #BCSM chat on November 18, 2019. We used Symplur (Symplur LLC) analytics to generate a transcript of tweets and a profile of participants. Responses to the questions are presented in this paper.

Results

There were 288 tweets from 42 users, generating 2.1 million impressions during the 1-hour chat. Participants included 23 patient advocates (most of whom were patients themselves), 7 doctors, 6 researchers or academics, 3 health care providers (2 nurses, 1 clinical psychologist), and 2 advocacy organizations. Participants noted communication gaps between patient and provider especially as related to the need for individualized medication dosing to minimize side effects and maximize quality of life. Timeliness of insurance company response, for example, to authorize treatments, was also a concern. Chat participants noted that palliative care is not well integrated into metastatic breast cancer care and that insurance company denials of coverage for these services were common. Regarding financial challenges, chat participants mentioned unexpected copays, changes in insurance drug formularies that made it difficult to anticipate drug costs, and limits on the number of physical therapy visits covered by insurance. Last, on the topic of disability benefits, participants expressed frustration about how to access disability benefits. When prompted for input regarding what health system and policy changes are necessary, participants suggested a number of ideas, including expanding the availability of nurse navigation for metastatic breast cancer, developing and offering a guide for the range of treatment and support resources patients with metastatic breast cancer, and improving access to clinical trials.

Conclusions

Rapid assessments drawing from online community insights may be a critical source of data that can be used to ensure more responsive policy action to improve patient care.

Comparative Effectiveness of Proton vs Photon Therapy as Part of Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy for Locally Advanced Cancer

Importance

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard-of-care curative treatment for many cancers but is associated with substantial morbidity. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy administered with proton therapy might reduce toxicity and achieve comparable cancer control outcomes compared with conventional photon radiotherapy by reducing the radiation dose to normal tissues.

Objective

To assess whether proton therapy in the setting of concurrent chemoradiotherapy is associated with fewer 90-day unplanned hospitalizations (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4 [CTCAEv4], grade ≥3) or other adverse events and similar disease-free and overall survival compared with concurrent photon therapy and chemoradiotherapy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective, nonrandomized comparative effectiveness study included 1483 adult patients with nonmetastatic, locally advanced cancer treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy with curative intent from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2016, at a large academic health system. Three hundred ninety-one patients received proton therapy and 1092, photon therapy. Data were analyzed from October 15, 2018, through February 1, 2019.

Interventions

Proton vs photon chemoradiotherapy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was 90-day adverse events associated with unplanned hospitalizations (CTCAEv4 grade ≥3). Secondary end points included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status decline during treatment, 90-day adverse events of at least CTCAEv4 grade 2 that limit instrumental activities of daily living, and disease-free and overall survival. Data on adverse events and survival were gathered prospectively. Modified Poisson regression models with inverse propensity score weighting were used to model adverse event outcomes, and Cox proportional hazards regression models with weighting were used for survival outcomes. Propensity scores were estimated using an ensemble machine-learning approach.

Results

Among the 1483 patients included in the analysis (935 men [63.0%]; median age, 62 [range, 18-93] years), those receiving proton therapy were significantly older (median age, 66 [range, 18-93] vs 61 [range, 19-91] years; P < .01), had less favorable Charlson-Deyo comorbidity scores (median, 3.0 vs 2.0; P < .01), and had lower integral radiation dose to tissues outside the target (mean [SD] volume, 14.1 [6.4] vs 19.1 [10.6] cGy/cc × 107; P < .01). Baseline grade ≥2 toxicity (22% vs 24%; P = .37) and ECOG performance status (mean [SD], 0.62 [0.74] vs 0.68 [0.80]; P = .16) were similar between the 2 cohorts. In propensity score weighted-analyses, proton chemoradiotherapy was associated with a significantly lower relative risk of 90-day adverse events of at least grade 3 (0.31; 95% CI, 0.15-0.66; P = .002), 90-day adverse events of at least grade 2 (0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.93; P = .006), and decline in performance status during treatment (0.51; 95% CI, 0.37-0.71; P < .001). There was no difference in disease-free or overall survival.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this analysis, proton chemoradiotherapy was associated with significantly reduced acute adverse events that caused unplanned hospitalizations, with similar disease-free and overall survival. Prospective trials are warranted to validate these results.

The utility of the implementation science framework "Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services" (i-PARIHS) and the facilitator role for introducing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in a medical oncology outpatient department

PURPOSE

We evaluated the utility of the implementation science framework "Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services" (i-PARIHS) for introducing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) into a medical oncology outpatient department. The i-PARIHS framework identifies four core constructs for implementation, including Facilitation, Innovation, Context and Recipients.

METHODS

A pilot study used the i-PARIHS framework to identify PROM implementation barriers and enablers to inform facilitation support strategies, such as training clinicians and staff, workflow support, technical support and audit and feedback. Pre- and post-implementation surveys were completed by 83 and 72 staff, respectively, (nurses, doctors and allied health), to assess perceived knowledge, enablers, barriers and utility of PROMs; and acceptability of the PROM intervention was also assessed post-implementation.

RESULTS

Important barriers included time constraints and previous experiences with technology. Enablers included good leadership support and a culture of learning. Facilitation strategies were used to overcome barriers identified in the i-PARIHS core domains. Compared to before the intervention, staff surveys showed improvement in perceived usefulness, perceived understanding and interpretation skills for PROMs. Staff perceptions about lack of time to use PROMs during visits remained a major perceived barrier post-implementation.

CONCLUSION

The i-PARIHS framework was useful for guiding the implementation of PROMs in routine oncology care. The four core i-PARIHS constructs (Facilitation, Innovation, Context and Recipients) identified factors that directly impacted implementation, with Facilitation having a particularly important role to overcome these barriers. Oncology clinics and health systems considering implementing PROMs should consider having a dedicated Facilitator available during PROM implementation.

Functional Leadership in Interteam Contexts: Understanding 'What' in the Context of Why? Where? When? and Who?

Research on team leadership has primarily focused on leadership processes targeted within teams, in support of team objectives. Yet, teams are open systems that interact with other teams to achieve proximal as well as distal goals. This review clarifies that defining 'what' constitutes functionally effective leadership in interteam contexts requires greater precision with regard to where (within teams, across teams) and why (team goals, system goals) leadership processes are enacted, as well as greater consideration of when and among whom leadership processes arise. We begin by synthesizing findings from empirical studies published over the past 30 years that shed light on questions of what, where, why, when, and who related to interteam leadership and end by providing three overarching recommendations for how research should proceed in order to provide a more comprehensive picture of leadership in interteam contexts.

Multiteam Systems: An Integrated Review and Comparison of Different Forms

In this review, we examine the burgeoning body of research on multiteam systems (MTSs) since the introduction of the concept in 2001. MTSs refer to networks of interdependent teams that coordinate at some level to achieve proximal and distal goals. We summarize MTS findings around three core processes and states: within- and between-team coordination processes/structures, leadership structures/processes, and cognitive and affective/motivation emergent states. Furthermore, we explore how these processes and states vary according to MTS boundary status (internal or external), component team distance (geographic, functional, cultural, and discipline), and superordinate goal type (intellectual or physical). We identify several process and state similarities across levels of these attributes, as well as highlight some important differences. We conclude with a set of propositions and future directions prompted by our review, which can serve as a guide for future MTS research.

Defining current gaps in quality measures for cancer immunotherapy: consensus report from the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) 2019 Quality Summit

BACKGROUND

Quality measures are important because they can help improve and standardize the delivery of cancer care among healthcare providers and across tumor types. In an environment characterized by a rapidly shifting immunotherapeutic landscape and lack of associated long-term outcome data, defining quality measures for cancer immunotherapy is a high priority yet fraught with many challenges.

METHODS

Thus, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer convened a multistakeholder expert panel to, first, identify the current gaps in measures of quality cancer care delivery as it relates to immunotherapy and to, second, advance priority concepts surrounding quality measures that could be developed and broadly adopted by the field.

RESULTS

After reviewing the existing quality measure landscape employed for immunotherapeutic-based cancer care, the expert panel identified four relevant National Quality Strategy domains (patient safety, person and family-centered care, care coordination and communication, appropriate treatment selection) with significant gaps in immunotherapy-based quality cancer care delivery. Furthermore, these domains offer opportunities for the development of quality measures as they relate to cancer immunotherapy. These four quality measure concepts are presented in this consensus statement.

CONCLUSIONS

This work represents a first step toward defining and standardizing quality delivery of cancer immunotherapy in order to realize its optimal application and benefit for patients.

Patient perspectives on primary care and oncology care coordination in the context of multiple chronic conditions: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patients' views on the optimal model for care coordination between primary care providers (PCPs) and oncologists in the context of cancer and multiple chronic conditions (MCC) are unclear. Thus, the purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the perceptions of patients with both cancer and MCC regarding their care coordination needs.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, the literature was systematically searched through PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO for articles pertaining to patients' perspectives, experiences, and needs regarding care coordination between PCPs and oncologists during the cancer care continuum, in the context of patients with cancer and MCC. English-language articles were included if they met the following criteria: 1) published between 2008 and 2018; 2) peer-reviewed study; 3) patients aged 18 years or older diagnosed with any type or stage of cancer; 4) patients have one or more chronic comorbid condition; 5) inclusion of patient perceptions, experiences, or needs related to care coordination between PCPs and oncologists; and 6) ability to extract results. Data extraction was performed with a standardized form, and themes were developed through qualitative synthesis. A grounded theory approach was used to qualitatively evaluate data extracted from articles and create a framework for providers to consider when developing patient-centered care coordination strategies for these complex patients. Risk of bias within each study was assessed independently by two authors using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

RESULTS

A total of 22 articles were retained, representing the perspectives of 8,114 patients with cancer and MCC. Studies were heterogeneous in the patients' respective phases of cancer care and study design. From qualitative synthesis, four themes emerged regarding patients' needs for cancer care coordination and were included as constructs to develop the Patient-centered Care Coordination among Patients with Multiple Chronic Conditions and Cancer (PCP-MC) framework. Constructs included: 1) Communication; 2) Defining provider care roles; 3) Information access; and 4) Individualized patient care. Care navigators served as a communication bridge between providers and patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings highlight the importance that patients with both cancer and MCC place on communication with and between providers, efficient access to understandable care information, defined provider care roles, and care tailored to their individual needs and circumstances. Providers and policymakers may consider the developed PCP-MC framework when designing, implementing, and evaluating patient-centered care coordination strategies for patients with both cancer and MCC.

Definition and Coordination of Roles and Responsibilities Among Cancer Center Clinic and Research Personnel

PURPOSE

Effective enrollment and treatment of patients in cancer clinical trials require definition and coordination of roles and responsibilities among clinic and research personnel.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed a survey that incorporated modified components of the Survey of Physician Attitudes Regarding the Care of Cancer Survivors. Surveys were administered to clinic nursing staff and research personnel at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center. Results were analyzed using χ²-tests, t tests, and analyses of variance.

RESULTS

Surveys were completed by 105 staff members (n = 50 research staff, n = 55 clinic staff; 61% response rate). Research staff were more likely to feel that they had the skills to answer questions, convey information, and provide education for patients on trials (all P < .05). Both clinic and research staff reported receipt of communication about responsibilities in fewer than 30% of cases, although research staff reported provision of such information in more than 60% of cases. Among 20 tasks related to care of patients in trials, no single preferred model of responsibility assignment was selected by the majority of clinic staff for nine tasks (45%) or by research staff for three tasks (15%). Uncertainty about which team coordinates care was reported by three times as many clinic staff as research staff (P = .01). There was also substantial variation in the preferred model for delivery of care to patients in trials (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Knowledge, attitudes, and perception of care and responsibilities for patients on clinical trials differ between and among clinic and research personnel. Additional research about how these findings affect efficiency and quality of care on clinical trials is needed.

Implications for patient-provider communication and health self-efficacy among cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions: results from the Health Information National Trends Survey

PURPOSE

Cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions experience significant challenges managing their health. The six core functions of patient-centered communication (PCC)-fostering healing relationships, exchanging information, responding to emotions, managing uncertainty, making decisions, and enabling patient self-management-represent a central component to facilitating a survivor's confidence to manage their health that has not been investigated in cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions.

METHOD

Nationally representative data across two iterations of the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) were merged with combined replicate weights using the jackknife replication method. Adjusted linear regression examined the association between PCC and health self-efficacy in a sample of breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer survivors and by multiple chronic conditions.

RESULTS

53.9% reported that providers did not always respond to their emotions and 48.9% reported that they could not always rely on their providers to help them manage uncertainty. In the adjusted linear regression models, there was a significant positive association between PCC and health self-efficacy (β = 0.2, p = 0.01) for the entire sample. However, the association between PCC and health self-efficacy was attenuated in cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions (β = 0.1, p = 0.53).

CONCLUSION

PCC alone is not enough to improve a cancer survivor's confidence in their ability to manage their health in the presence of multiple chronic conditions.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions need ongoing support, in addition to PCC, that render them prepared to manage their health after cancer.

2018 Hematology/Oncology Pharmacist Association Best Practices for the Management of Oral Oncolytic Therapy: Pharmacy Practice Standard

PURPOSE:

The aim of the current work was to present a pharmacy practice standard from the Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association (HOPA) on the management of oral oncolytic therapy.

METHODS:

The HOPA Standards Committee organized a work group of oncology pharmacist specialists to create a pharmacy practice standard for the management of oral oncolytic therapy that describes the pharmacist’s role on the cancer care team, provides examples of practice tools and resources, summarizes current data related to outcomes, and discusses opportunities to enhance the care of patients with cancer who receive oral oncolytic therapy. We reviewed primary literature, including currently published oral oncolytic guidelines and HOPA’s Scope of Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Practice.

RESULTS:

Management of oral oncolytic therapy was divided into the following primary areas: prescribing, education, dispensing and distribution, and monitoring and follow-up. Pharmacists’ roles were summarized in each area with a focus on interprofessional collaboration, communication, patient safety, and quality of patient care. Standards describe the best practices in each area (Table 1).

CONCLUSION:

Multiple opportunities exist for pharmacists to enhance the care of patients with cancer who receive oral oncolytics through collaboration with oncology care team members. The role of the oncology pharmacist in the care of this patient population is critical given the complexities related to cost, tolerability, and safety of oral oncolytic medications; issues of access; and the monitoring and follow-up of patients receiving this therapy.

Surveillance for colorectal cancer survivors in an integrated safety-net health system in the United States

Introduction

Guideline-recommended surveillance reduces likelihood of colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence, yet surveillance rates are low in the United States (US). Little is known about CRC surveillance rates among patients without health insurance and their primary care clinicians/oncologists' attitudes towards surveillance care.

Methods

A retrospective study of 205 patients diagnosed with Stage I-III CRC from 2008-2010 was conducted in an integrated system with a network of providers delivering care to patients lacking health insurance coverage. Surveillance patterns were characterized from medical records and logistic regression models examined correlates of guideline-concordant surveillance. 41 Parkland primary care physicians (PCPs) and 24 oncologists completed surveys to assess their attitudes and practices regarding CRC surveillance.

Results

38% of CRC patients received guideline-concordant surveillance; those with early stage cancers were less likely to receive surveillance (OR=0.35; 95 CI: 0.14, 0.87). PCPs and oncologists differed markedly on who is responsible for cancer surveillance care. 77% of oncologists responded that PCPs evaluated patients for cancer recurrence while 76% of PCPs responded that these services were either ordered by oncologists or shared with PCPs. 67% of oncologists said they rarely provide a treatment and surveillance care plan to survivors and over half said that they infrequently communicate with patients' other physicians about who will follow patients for their cancer and other medical issues.

Discussion

Care coordination between PCP and oncologist is needed to improve CRC surveillance. New models of shared care clearly delineating roles for oncologists and PCPs are needed to improve CRC survivorship care.

Optimizing clinical and organizational practice in cancer survivor transitions between specialized oncology and primary care teams: a realist evaluation of multiple case studies

Background

Cancer is now viewed as a chronic disease, presenting challenges to follow-up and survivorship care. Models to shift from haphazard, suboptimal and fragmented episodes of care to an integrated cancer care continuum must be developed, tested and implemented. Numerous studies demonstrate improved care when follow-up is assured by both oncology and primary care providers rather than either group alone. However, there is little data on the roles assumed by specialized oncology teams and primary care providers and the extent to which they work together. This study aims to develop, pilot test and measure outcomes of an innovative risk-based coordinated cancer care model for patients transitioning from specialized oncology teams to primary care providers.

Methods/design

This multiple case study using a sequential mixed-methods design rests on a theory-driven realist evaluation approach to understand how transitions might be improved. The cases are two health regions in Quebec, Canada, defined by their geographic territory. Each case includes a Cancer Centre and three Family Medicine Groups selected based on differences in their determining characteristics. Qualitative data will be collected from document review (scientific journal, grey literature, local documentation), semi-directed interviews with key informants, and observation of care coordination practices. Qualitative data will be supplemented with a survey to measure the outcome of the coordinated model among providers (scope of practice, collaboration, relational coordination, leadership) and patients diagnosed with breast, colorectal or prostate cancer (access to care, patient-centredness, communication, self-care, survivorship profile, quality of life). Results from descriptive and regression analyses will be triangulated with thematic analysis of qualitative data. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods data will be interpreted within and across cases in order to identify context-mechanism associations that explain outcomes.

Discussion

The study will provide empirical data on a risk-based coordinated model of cancer care to guide actions at different levels in the health system. This in-depth multiple case study using a realist approach considers both the need for context-specific intervention research and the imperative to address research gaps regarding coordinated models of cancer care.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-017-2785-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

My Team of Care Study: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of a Web-Based Communication Tool for Collaborative Care in Patients With Advanced Cancer

BACKGROUND

The management of patients with complex care needs requires the expertise of health care providers from multiple settings and specialties. As such, there is a need for cross-setting, cross-disciplinary solutions that address deficits in communication and continuity of care. We have developed a Web-based tool for clinical collaboration, called Loop, which assembles the patient and care team in a virtual space for the purpose of facilitating communication around care management.

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this pilot study were to evaluate the feasibility of integrating a tool like Loop into current care practices and to capture preliminary measures of the effect of Loop on continuity of care, quality of care, symptom distress, and health care utilization.

METHODS

We conducted an open-label pilot cluster randomized controlled trial allocating patients with advanced cancer (defined as stage III or IV disease) with ≥3 months prognosis, their participating health care team and caregivers to receive either the Loop intervention or usual care. Outcome data were collected from patients on a monthly basis for 3 months. Trial feasibility was measured with rate of uptake, as well as recruitment and system usage. The Picker Continuity of Care subscale, Palliative care Outcomes Scale, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, and Ambulatory and Home Care Record were patient self-reported measures of continuity of care, quality of care, symptom distress, and health services utilization, respectively. We conducted a content analysis of messages posted on Loop to understand how the system was used.

RESULTS

Nineteen physicians (oncologists or palliative care physicians) were randomized to the intervention or control arms. One hundred twenty-seven of their patients with advanced cancer were approached and 48 patients enrolled. Of 24 patients in the intervention arm, 20 (83.3%) registered onto Loop. In the intervention and control arms, 12 and 11 patients completed three months of follow-up, respectively. A mean of 1.2 (range: 0 to 4) additional healthcare providers with an average total of 3 healthcare providers participated per team. An unadjusted between-arm increase of +11.4 was observed on the Picker scale in favor of the intervention arm. Other measures showed negligible changes. Loop was primarily used for medical care management, symptom reporting, and appointment coordination.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study show that implementation of Loop was feasible. It provides useful information for planning future studies further examining effectiveness and team collaboration. Numerically higher scores were observed for the Loop arm relative to the control arm with respect to continuity of care. Future work is required to understand the incentives and barriers to participation so that the implementation of tools like Loop can be optimized.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02372994; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02372994 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6r00L4Skb).

Impact of an electronic handoff documentation tool on team shared mental models in pediatric critical care

OBJECTIVE

To examine the impact of the implementation of an electronic handoff tool (the Handoff Tool) on shared mental models (SMM) within patient care teams as measured by content overlap and discrepancies in verbal handoff presentations given by different clinicians caring for the same patient.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Researchers observed, recorded, and transcribed verbal handoffs given by different members of patient care teams in a pediatric intensive care unit. The transcripts were qualitatively coded and analyzed for content overlap scores and the number of discrepancies in handoffs of different team members before and after the implementation of the tool.

RESULTS

Content overlap scores did not change post-implementation. The average number of discrepancies nearly doubled following the implementation (from 0.76 discrepancies per handoff group pre-implementation to 1.17 discrepancies per handoff group post-implementation); however, this change was not statistically significant (p=0.37). Discrepancies classified as related to dosage of treatment or procedure and to patients' symptoms increased in frequency post-implementation.

DISCUSSION

The results suggest that the Handoff Tool did not have the desired positive impact on SMM within patient care teams. Future electronic tools for facilitating team handoff may need longer implementation times, complementary changes to handoff process and structure, and improved designs that integrate a common core of shared information with discipline-specific records.

CONCLUSION

While electronic handoff tools provide great opportunities to improve communication and facilitate the formation of shared mental models within patient care teams, further work is necessary to realize their full potential.