Improving the Quality of Cancer Care in Community Hospitals

Hospital Accreditation Status and Treatment Differences Among Black Patients With Colon Cancer

Importance

Hospital-level factors, such as hospital type or volume, have been demonstrated to play a role in treatment disparities for Black patients with cancer. However, data evaluating the association of hospital accreditation status with differences in treatment among Black patients with cancer are lacking.

Objective

To evaluate the association of Commission on Cancer (CoC) hospital accreditation status with receipt of guideline-concordant care and mortality among non-Hispanic Black patients with colon cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This population-based cohort study used the National Program of Cancer Registries, which is a multicenter database with data from all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and covers 97% of the cancer population in the US. The participants included non-Hispanic Black patients aged 18 years or older diagnosed with colon cancer between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020. Race and ethnicity were abstracted from medical records as recorded by health care facilities and practitioners. The data were analyzed from December 7, 2023, to January 17, 2024.

Exposure

CoC hospital accreditation.

Main Outcome and Measures

Guideline-concordant care was defined as adequate lymphadenectomy during surgery for patients with stages I to III disease or chemotherapy administration for patients with stage III disease. Multivariable logistic regression models investigated associations with receipt of guideline-concordant care and Cox proportional hazards regression models assessed associations with 3-year cancer-specific mortality.

Results

Of 17 249 non-Hispanic Black patients with colon cancer (mean [SD] age, 64.8 [12.8] years; 8724 females [50.6%]), 12 756 (74.0%; mean [SD] age, 64.7 [12.8] years) were treated at a CoC-accredited hospital and 4493 (26.0%; mean [SD] age, 65.1 [12.5] years) at a non-CoC-accredited hospital. Patients treated at CoC-accredited hospitals compared with those treated at non-CoC-accredited hospitals had higher odds of receiving guideline-concordant lymphadenectomy (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.89; 95% CI, 1.69-2.11) and chemotherapy (AOR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.97-2.72). Treatment at CoC-accredited hospitals was associated with lower cancer-specific mortality for patients with stages I to III disease who received surgery (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.98) and for patients with stage III disease eligible for chemotherapy (AHR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.96).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study of non-Hispanic Black patients with colon cancer, patients treated at CoC-accredited hospitals compared with those treated at non-CoC-accredited hospitals were more likely to receive guideline-concordant care and have lower mortality risk. These findings suggest that increasing access to high-quality guideline-concordant care at CoC-accredited hospitals may reduce variations in cancer treatment and outcomes for underserved populations.

Geographic distance to Commission on Cancer-accredited and nonaccredited hospitals in the United States

PURPOSE

The Commission on Cancer (CoC) establishes standards to support multidisciplinary, comprehensive cancer care. CoC-accredited cancer programs diagnose and/or treat 73% of patients in the United States. However, rural patients may experience diminished access to CoC-accredited cancer programs. Our study evaluated distance to hospitals by CoC accreditation status, rurality, and Census Division.

METHODS

All US hospitals were identified from public-use Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data, then merged with CoC-accreditation data. Rural-Urban Continuum Codes (RUCC) were used to categorize counties as metro (RUCC 1-3), large rural (RUCC 4-6), or small rural (RUCC 7-9). Distance from each county centroid to the nearest CoC and non-CoC hospital was calculated using the Great Circle Distance method in ArcGIS.

FINDINGS

Of 1,382 CoC-accredited hospitals, 89% were in metro counties. Small rural counties contained a total of 30 CoC and 794 non-CoC hospitals. CoC hospitals were located 4.0, 10.1, and 11.5 times farther away than non-CoC hospitals for residents of metro, large rural, and small rural counties, respectively, while the average distance to non-CoC hospitals was similar across groups (9.4-13.6 miles). Distance to CoC-accredited facilities was greatest west of the Mississippi River, in particular the Mountain Division (99.2 miles).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite similar proximity to non-CoC hospitals across groups, CoC hospitals are located farther from large and small rural counties than metro counties, suggesting rural patients have diminished access to multidisciplinary, comprehensive cancer care afforded by CoC-accredited hospitals. Addressing distance-based access barriers to high-quality, comprehensive cancer treatment in rural US communities will require a multisectoral approach.

Increase in Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy Among Patients with Invasive Breast Cancer or Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: Who is Left Behind?

PURPOSE

We aimed to update the trend of hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation (HF-WBI) use over time in the US and examine factors associated with lack of HF-WBI adoption for patients with early-stage invasive breast cancer (IBC) or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) undergoing a lumpectomy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Among patients who underwent a lumpectomy, we identified 928,034 patients with early-stage IBC and 330,964 patients with DCIS in the 2004 to 2020 National Cancer Database. We defined HF-WBI as 2.5-3.33 Gy/fraction to the breast and conventionally fractionated WBI as 1.8-2.0 Gy/fraction. We evaluated the trend of HF-WBI utilization using a generalized linear model with the log link and binomial distribution. Factors associated with HF-WBI utilization were assessed using multivariable logistic regression in patients diagnosed between 2018 and 2020.

RESULTS

Among patients with IBC, HF-WBI use has significantly increased from 0.7% in 2004 to 63.9% in 2020. Similarly, HF-WBI usage among patients with DCIS has also increased significantly from 0.4% in 2004 to 56.6% in 2020. Black patients with IBC were less likely than White patients to receive HF-WBI (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.81; 95% CI, 0.77-0.85). Community cancer programs were less likely to administer HF-WBI to patients with IBC (AOR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.77-0.84) and to those with DCIS (AOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.79-0.96) than academic/research programs. Younger age, positive nodes, larger tumor size, low volume programs, and facility location were also associated with lack of HF-WBI adoption in both patient cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

HF-WBI utilization among postlumpectomy patients has significantly increased from 2004 to 2020 and can finally be considered standard of care in the US. We found substantial disparities in adoption within patient and facility subgroups. Reducing disparities in HF-WBI adoption has the potential to further alleviate health care costs while improving patients' quality of life.

Diagnosing Provider, Referral Patterns, Facility Type, and Patient Satisfaction Among Iowa Rectal Cancer Patients

PURPOSE

Rectal cancer treatment at high-volume centers is associated with higher likelihood of guideline-concordant care and improved outcomes. Whether rectal cancer patients are referred for treatment at high-volume hospitals may depend on diagnosing provider specialty. We aimed to determine associations of diagnosing provider specialty with treating provider specialty and characteristics of the treating facility for rectal cancer patients in Iowa.

METHODS

Rectal cancer patients identified using the Iowa Cancer Registry completed a mailed survey on their treatment experience and decision-making process. Provider type was defined by provider specialty and whether the provider referred patients elsewhere for surgery. Multivariable-adjusted logistic regression models were used to examine predictors of being diagnosed by a general surgeon who also performed the subsequent surgery.

RESULTS

Of 417 patients contacted, 381 (76%) completed the survey; our final analytical sample size was 267. Half of respondents were diagnosed by a gastroenterologist who referred them elsewhere; 30% were diagnosed by a general surgeon who referred them elsewhere, and 20% were diagnosed by a general surgeon who performed the surgery. Respondents who were ≥ 65 years old, had less than a college education, and who made < $50,000 per year were more likely to be diagnosed by a general surgeon who performed surgery. In multivariable-adjusted models, respondents diagnosed and treated by the same general surgeon were more likely to have surgery at hospitals with low annual colorectal cancer surgery volume and less likely to be satisfied with their care.

CONCLUSIONS

Among rectal cancer patients in Iowa, respondents who were diagnosed and treated by the same provider were less likely to get treatment at a high-volume facility. This study informs the importance of provider referral in centralization of rectal cancer care.

Socioeconomic Factors Predict Long-Term Quality of Life of Cancer Survivors: An International Survey

INTRODUCTION

Despite advances in cancer treatment, the quality of life (QOL) of survivors varies significantly. We assessed the correlation between socioeconomic factors and long-term QOL in a global cohort of cancer survivors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients were offered surveys via online support groups. Using the Short Form-12 validated questionnaire, physical QOL (PQOL) and mental QOL (MQOL) well-being were compared to the general population. Socioeconomic factors were assessed with regression analysis for impact on QOL.

RESULTS

Seven hundred eighty two survivors from six continents responded. They were 57 ± 13 y and 68% female, 90.8% White, with 43 distinct cancer diagnoses. All survivors had PQOL and MQOL scores lower than the general population. Lower education level, household income, and non-White race all correlated with reduced PQOL and/or MQOL. Age was negatively correlated with PQOL (r = -0.08, P = 0.03) and positively correlated with MQOL (r = 0.142, P < 0.001). Care at large regional/academic centers was associated with higher MQOL (42 ± 14 versus 38 ± 11, P = 0.005). Age (β = -0.1, P = 0.04), education (β = 1.1, P = 0.005), and income (β = 2.0, P < 0.001) were predictors of PQOL, while age (β = 0.2, P < 0.001), income (β = 1.7, P = 0.002), and community hospital care (β = -3.6, P = 0.013) were predictors of MQOL.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large international survey of cancer survivors, we identified socioeconomic factors and their associations with QOL. Further work should be directed to provide durable support across all socioeconomic classes.

Clinical research in the community

Most patients with high-risk hematologic malignancies are treated in community oncology practices near their residence. This is partly due to patients' ardent desire to be closer to home and trust in local caregivers. Treatments are increasingly complex, even as initial therapy, and more so upon relapse. Improved outcomes in the past decade are largely available through clinical trials primarily offered through academic medical centers. Limited availability of clinical trials at community oncology practices is a major contributor to outcome disparities among minorities, rural, and elderly patients, all of whom are underrepresented in clinical trials. Between 2003 and 2023, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) established programs to address these challenges: the Community Clinical Oncology Program, Minority- Based Community Clinical Oncology Program, NCI Community Cancer Centers Program, and NCI Community Oncology Research Program. However, disparities have persisted, particularly for pharmaceutical-directed clinical research. Lack of representation in clinical research results in data absenteeism, data chauvinism and hallucination, and a delay in treatment availability for high-risk hematologic malignancies in community practice. To address this, the US Congress enacted the Food and Drug Administration Omnibus Act in 2022 to help establish diversity plans that would broaden clinical trial patient enrollment in the United States. We recommend using these initiatives in community oncology practices, including the adoption of the DRIVE strategy in collaboration with pharmaceutical companies, as well as using the NCI-established programs to promote clinical trial availability for patients with high-risk malignancies treated in community oncology practices.

Information Technology and Telemedicine Services in Community Oncology Practices

PURPOSE

We described information technology support and use of telemedicine for cancer care and research purposes at community oncology practices within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP).

METHODS

We used data from the NCORP 2017 and 2022 Landscape Assessments. Separate logistic regression models were used to assess factors associated with the use of telemedicine for delivery of cancer care in 2017 and for research purposes in 2022 (cancer care delivery not assessed in 2022).

RESULTS

Information was available from 210 and 259 practice groups excluding pediatric-only groups in 2017 and 2022, respectively. In 2017, 30% of practice groups used telemedicine for delivery of cancer care; half of these (15% overall) could use telemedicine for research purposes. In 2022, telemedicine was used for research purposes in 73% of practice groups. In multivariable models, self-identifying as a safety-net hospital was associated with a lower odd of telemedicine use for delivery of cancer care (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.93), whereas affiliation with a designated critical access hospital was associated with a higher odd of telemedicine use for delivery of cancer care (AOR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.10 to 4.76). Having a general survivorship clinic (AOR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.04 to 3.54) and number of oncology providers (increase per 10 providers; AOR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.65) were associated with telemedicine use for research purposes.

CONCLUSION

Almost one third of NCORP practice groups used telemedicine for cancer care delivery in 2017. In 2022, there is high capacity among NCORP practices (almost three-quarters) to use telemedicine for research purposes, especially among practices with a general survivorship clinic and a greater provider number.

International Center-Level Variation in Utilization of Completion Lymph Node Dissection and Adjuvant Systemic Therapy for Sentinel Lymph Node-Positive Melanoma at Major Referral Centers

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine overall trends and center-level variation in utilization of completion lymph node dissection (CLND) and adjuvant systemic therapy for sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive melanoma.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Based on recent clinical trials, management options for SLN-positive melanoma now include effective adjuvant systemic therapy and nodal observation instead of CLND. It is unknown how these findings have shaped practice or how these contemporaneous developments have influenced their respective utilization.

METHODS

We performed an international cohort study at 21 melanoma referral centers in Australia, Europe, and the United States that treated adults with SLN-positive melanoma and negative distant staging from July 2017 to June 2019. We used generalized linear and multinomial logistic regression models with random intercepts for each center to assess center-level variation in CLND and adjuvant systemic treatment, adjusting for patient and disease-specific characteristics.

RESULTS

Among 1109 patients, performance of CLND decreased from 28% to 8% and adjuvant systemic therapy use increased from 29 to 60%. For both CLND and adjuvant systemic treatment, the most influential factors were nodal tumor size, stage, and location of treating center. There was notable variation among treating centers in management of stage IIIA patients and use of CLND with adjuvant systemic therapy versus nodal observation alone for similar risk patients.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been an overall decline in CLND and simultaneous adoption of adjuvant systemic therapy for patients with SLN-positive melanoma though wide variation in practice remains. Accounting for differences in patient mix, location of care contributed significantly to the observed variation.

Facility type is associated with improved perioperative and oncologic outcomes after minimally invasive surgery for pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

This study sought to evaluate outcome differences by facility type in patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients with clinical stage I-III PDAC who underwent MIS from 2010 to 2019 in academic or community facilities.

RESULTS

Of 6806 patients who fulfilled inclusion criteria; 1788 (26.3%) were treated at community facilities and 5018 (74.7%) at academic facilities. Patients treated at academic facilities were more likely to receive care at a high-volume facility (62% vs. 32%, p < 0.001), undergo a Whipple (64% vs. 61%, p < 0.001), and be clinical stage II (42% vs. 38%) and III (5.6% vs. 4.9%, p = 0.001). Treatment at academic facilities was predictive of receiving neoadjuvant therapy (OR 2.08, p < 0.001), negative margin resection (OR 0.80, p = 0.004), lower 90-day mortality (OR 0.72, p = 0.02), decreased length of stay (IRR 0.96, p < 0.001), and longer OS (HR 0.88, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Patients who underwent MIS for PDAC at academic facilities experienced an association with improved perioperative and oncologic outcomes than those treated in community facilities.

Impact of Cancer Care Regionalization on Patient Volume

BACKGROUND

Cancer centers are regionalizing care to expand patient access, but the effects on patient volume are unknown. This study aimed to compare patient volumes before and after the establishment of head and neck regional care centers (HNRCCs).

METHODS

This study analyzed 35,394 unique new patient visits at MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) before and after the creation of HNRCCs. Univariate regression estimated the rate of increase in new patient appointments. Geospatial analysis evaluated patient origin and distribution.

RESULTS

The mean new patients per year in 2006-2011 versus 2012-2017 was 2735 ± 156 patients versus 3155 ± 207 patients, including 464 ± 78 patients at HNRCCs, reflecting a 38.4 % increase in overall patient volumes. The rate of increase in new patient appointments did not differ significantly before and after HNRCCs (121.9 vs 95.8 patients/year; P = 0.519). The patients from counties near HNRCCs, showed a 210.8 % increase in appointments overall, 33.8 % of which were at an HNRCC. At the main campus exclusively, the shift in regional patients to HNRCCs coincided with a lower rate of increase in patients from the MDACC service area (33.7 vs. 11.0 patients/year; P = 0.035), but the trend was toward a greater increase in out-of-state patients (25.7 vs. 40.3 patients/year; P = 0.299).

CONCLUSIONS

The creation of HNRCCs coincided with stable increases in new patient volume, and a sizeable minority of patients sought care at regional centers. Regional patients shifted to the HNRCCs, and out-of-state patient volume increased at the main campus, optimizing access for both local and out-of-state patients.

Adjuvant treatment of surgically treated bone metastasis patients: association with hospital characteristics and trends over time

Patients with metastatic disease of the bone (MDB) often require surgical stabilization; however, there is not widespread consensus on subsequent adjuvant management. This study aimed to characterize utilization of perioperative adjuvant treatment among MDB patients. We identified 9413 surgically treated MDB patients with primary (breast, kidney, lung, prostate, or multiple myeloma) cancer from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for receipt of chemotherapy, radiation, and bisphosphonates, respectively, in the adjuvant setting (90 days before or after surgery) by hospital characteristics-medical school affiliation, surgery volume, and Commission on Cancer (CoC) accreditation. Trends in treatment utilization by year of surgery were assessed via bar charts and Chi-square tests for trend. Patients surgically treated at major medical schools or high-volume facilities (compared to no medical school affiliation and low volume) had significantly higher odds of receiving radiation and chemotherapy, independent of patient and tumor characteristics (OR (95% CI); medical school: radiation 1.33 (1.19-1.49), chemotherapy 1.15 (1.02-1.30); and high volume: radiation 1.22 (1.11-1.34), chemotherapy 1.11 (1.02-1.22)). Patients surgically treated at CoC-accredited institutions, compared to non-accredited, had significantly higher odds of receiving radiation and bisphosphonates [radiation 1.24 (1.13-1.36); bisphosphonates 1.15 (1.04-1.28)]. Use of chemotherapy and bisphosphonates increased while radiation use declined over the study period from 1991 to 2014. Medical school affiliation, hospital volume, and CoC accreditation are associated with receipt of adjuvant treatment to prevent or manage pathologic fractures in MDB patients. Further investigation is needed to determine whether these associations reflect delivery of optimal care.

Improving cancer care locally: Study of a hospital affiliate network model

PURPOSE

The University of Kentucky Markey Cancer Center Affiliate Network (MCCAN) increased access to high-quality cancer care for patients treated in community hospitals across the state by leveraging the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) standards to improve quality among its member sites. This study describes the network activities and services identified as most helpful or effective to its members, as well as the perceived value of joining MCCAN or pursing accreditation.

METHODS

An independent research team conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with 18 administrators and clinicians from 10 MCCAN hospitals in 2019. Interviews were transcribed and a thematic analysis was conducted.

FINDINGS

Network affiliation and CoC accreditation were perceived as helpful to improving quality of care. Having both clinician and administrative champions were key facilitators to achieving CoC standards and made mentoring of member sites a critical activity of the Network. Other components identified as valuable and/or key to the Network's success included providing access to specific CoC-required clinical services (eg, genetic counseling); offering regular performance monitoring and individualized feedback; establishing a culture of quality improvement; and fostering trust within the Network with patient referrals (ie, sending patients back to their local hospital for ongoing care).

CONCLUSIONS

Quality improvement in community cancer programs is challenging but several strategies were identified by members as valuable and effective. Efforts to disseminate the MCCAN model should focus on identifying the needs of community hospitals, implementing a quality monitoring system, and fostering site-level champions who can be influential drivers of change.

The Influence of Hospital Characteristics on Patient Survival in Surgically Managed Metastatic Disease of Bone: An Analysis of the SEER-Medicare Linked Database

OBJECTIVES

We investigated whether patients receiving surgical treatment for metastatic disease of bone (MDB) at hospitals with higher volume, medical school affiliation, or Commission on Cancer accreditation have superior outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database, we identified 9413 patients surgically treated for extremity MDB between 1992 and 2014 at the age of 66 years or older. Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate the hazards ratios (HR) for 90-day and 1-year mortality and 30-day readmission according to the characteristics of the hospital where bone surgery was performed.

RESULTS

We observed no notable differences in 90-day mortality, 1-year mortality, or 30-day readmission associated with hospital volume. Major medical school affiliation was associated with lower 90-day (HR: 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.80-0.96) and 1-year (HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.87-0.99) mortality after adjustments for demographic and tumor characteristics. Surgical treatment at Commission on Cancer accredited hospitals was associated with significantly higher risk of death at 90 days and 1 year after the surgery. This effect appeared to be driven by lung cancer patients (1-year HR: 1.17, 95% CI: 1.07-1.27).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest surgical management of MDB at lower-volume hospitals does not compromise survival or readmissions. There may be benefit to referral or consultation with an academic medical center in some tumor types or clinical scenarios.

Referrals and Decision-Making Considerations Involved in Selecting a Surgeon for Rectal Cancer Treatment in the Midwestern United States

BACKGROUND

Despite evidence of superior outcomes for rectal cancer at high-volume, multidisciplinary cancer centers, many patients undergo surgery in low-volume hospitals.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine considerations of former patients with rectal cancer when selecting their surgeon and to evaluate which considerations were associated with surgery at high-volume hospitals.

DESIGN

In this retrospective cohort study, patients were surveyed about what they considered when selecting a cancer surgeon.

SETTINGS

Study data were obtained via survey and the statewide Iowa Cancer Registry.

PATIENTS

All eligible individuals diagnosed with invasive stages II/III rectal cancer from 2013 to 2017 identified through the registry were invited to participate.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes were the characteristics of the hospital where they received surgery (ie, National Cancer Institute designation, Commission on Cancer accreditation, and rectal cancer surgery volume).

RESULTS

Among respondents, 318 of 417 (76%) completed surveys. Sixty-nine percent of patients selected their surgeon based on their physician's referral/recommendation, 20% based on surgeon/hospital reputation, and 11% based on personal connections to the surgeon. Participants who chose their surgeon based on reputation had significantly higher odds of surgery at National Cancer Institute-designated (OR 7.5; 95% CI, 3.8-15.0) or high-volume (OR 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2-5.7) hospitals than those who relied on referral.

LIMITATIONS

This study took place in a Midwestern state with a predominantly white population, which limited our ability to evaluate racial/ethnic associations.

CONCLUSION

Most patients with rectal cancer relied on referrals in selecting their surgeon, and those who did were less likely to receive surgery at a National Cancer Institute-designated or high-volume hospitals compared to those who considered reputation. Future research is needed to determine the impact of these decision factors on clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and quality of life. In addition, patients should be aware that relying on physician referral may not result in treatment from the most experienced or comprehensive care setting in their area. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B897.REMISIONES Y CONSIDERACIONES PARA LA TOMA DE DECISIONES RELACIONADAS CON LA SELECCIÓN DE UN CIRUJANO PARA EL TRATAMIENTO DEL CÁNCER DE RECTO EN EL MEDIO OESTE DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOSANTECEDENTES:A pesar de la evidencia de resultados superiores para el tratamiento del cáncer de recto en centros oncológicos de gran volumen y multidisciplinarios, muchos pacientes se someten a cirugía en hospitales de bajo volumen.OBJETIVOS:Examinar las consideraciones de los antiguos pacientes con cáncer de recto al momento de seleccionar a su cirujano y evaluar qué consideraciones se asociaron con la cirugía en hospitales de gran volumen.DISEÑO:Encuestamos a los pacientes sobre qué aspectos consideraron al elegir un cirujano oncológico para completar este estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.AJUSTE:Los datos del estudio se obtuvieron mediante una encuesta y el Registro de Cáncer del estado de Iowa.PACIENTES:Se invitó a participar a todas las personas elegibles diagnosticadas con cáncer de recto invasivo en estadios II/III entre 2013 y 2017 identificadas a través del registro.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los resultados principales fueron las características del hospital donde fue realizada la cirugía (es decir, designación del Instituto Nacional del Cáncer, acreditación de la Comisión de Cáncer y volumen de cirugía del cáncer de recto).RESULTADOS:Hubo 318 de 417 (76%) encuestas completadas. El sesenta y nueve por ciento seleccionó a su cirujano en función de la referencia / recomendación de su médico, el 20% por la reputación del cirujano/hospital, y el 11% por sus conexiones personales con el cirujano. Los participantes que eligieron a su cirujano en función a la reputación tuvieron probabilidades significativamente más altas de cirugía en el Instituto Nacional del Cáncer designado (OR = 7,5, IC del 95%: 3,8-15,0) o en hospitales de alto volumen (OR = 2,6, IC del 95%: 1,2-5,7) que aquellos que dependían de la derivación.LIMITACIONES:Este estudio se llevó a cabo en un estado del medio oeste con una población predominantemente blanca, lo que limitó nuestra capacidad para evaluar las asociaciones raciales/étnicas.CONCLUSIONES:La mayoría de los pacientes con cáncer de recto dependían de las derivaciones para seleccionar a su cirujano, y los que lo hacían tenían menos probabilidades de recibir cirugía en un hospital designado por el Instituto Nacional del Cáncer o en hospitales de gran volumen en comparación con los que consideraban la reputación. Se necesitan investigaciones a futuro para determinar el impacto de estos factores de decisión en los resultados clínicos, la satisfacción del paciente y la calidad de vida. Además, los pacientes deben ser conscientes de que depender de la remisión de un médico puede no resultar en el tratamiento más experimentado o integral en su área. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B897. (Traducción-Dr Osvaldo Gauto).

Identifying Core Functions of an Evidence-Based Intervention to Improve Cancer Care Quality in Rural Hospitals

Background:

Rural patients experience worse cancer survival outcomes than urban patients despite similar incidence rates, due in part to significant barriers to accessing quality cancer care. Community hospitals in non-metropolitan/rural areas play a crucial role in providing care to patients who desire and are able to receive care locally. However, rural community hospitals typically face challenges to providing comprehensive care due to lack of resources. The University of Kentucky’s Markey Cancer Center Affiliate Network (MCCAN) is an effective complex, multi-level intervention, improving cancer care in rural/under-resourced hospitals by supporting them in achieving American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) standards. With the long-term goal of adapting MCCAN for other rural contexts, we aimed to identify MCCAN’s core functions (i.e., the components key to the intervention’s effectiveness/implementation) using theory-driven qualitative data research methods.

Methods:

We conducted eight semi-structured virtual interviews with administrators, coordinators, clinicians, and certified tumor registrars from five MCCAN affiliate hospitals that were not CoC-accredited prior to joining MCCAN. Study team members coded interview transcripts and identified themes related to how MCCAN engaged affiliate sites in improving care quality (intervention functions) and implementing CoC standards (implementation functions) and analyzed themes to identify core functions. We then mapped core functions onto existing theories of change and presented the functions to MCCAN leadership to confirm validity and completeness of the functions.

Results:

Intervention core functions included: providing expertise and templates for achieving accreditation, establishing a culture of quality-improvement among affiliates, and fostering a shared goal of quality care. Implementation core functions included: fostering a sense of community and partnership, building trust between affiliates and Markey, providing information and resources to increase feasibility and acceptability of meeting CoC standards, and mentoring and empowering administrators and clinicians to champion implementation.

Conclusion:

The MCCAN intervention presents a more equitable strategy of extending the resources and expertise of large cancer centers to assist smaller community hospitals in achieving evidence-based standards for cancer care. Using rigorous qualitative methods, we distilled this intervention into its core functions, positioning us (and others) to adapt the MCCAN intervention to address cancer disparities in other rural contexts.

The Impact of Commission on Cancer Accreditation Status, Hospital Rurality and Hospital Size on Quality Measure Performance Rates

BACKGROUND

Rural cancer patients receive lower-quality care and experience worse outcomes than urban patients. Commission on Cancer (CoC) accreditation requires hospitals to monitor performance on evidence-based quality measuresPlease confirm the list of authors is correc, but the impact of accreditation is not clear due to lack of data from non-accredited facilities and confounding between patient rurality and hospital accreditation, rurality, and size.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational study assessed associations between rurality, accreditation, size, and performance rates for four CoC quality measures (breast radiation, breast chemotherapy, colon chemotherapy, colon nodal yield). Iowa Cancer Registry data were queried to identify all eligible patients diagnosed between 2011 and 2017. Cases were assigned to the surgery hospital to calculate performance rates. Univariate and multivariate regression models were fitted to identify patient- and hospital-level predictors and assess trends.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 10,381 patients; 46% were rural. Compared with urban patients, rural patients more often received treatment at small, rural, and non-accredited facilities (p < 0.001 for all). Rural hospitals had fewer beds and were far less likely to be CoC-accredited than urban hospitals (p < 0.001 for all). On multivariate analysis, CoC accreditation was the strongest, independent predictor of higher hospital performance for all quality measures evaluated (p < 0.05 in each model). Performance rates significantly improved over time only for the colon nodal yield quality measure, and only in urban hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

CoC accreditation requires monitoring and evaluating performance on quality measures, which likely contributes to better performance on these measures. Efforts to support rural hospital accreditation may improve existing disparities in rural cancer treatment and outcomes.