National Cancer Institute Cancer Center designation and 30-day mortality for hospitalized, immunocompromised cancer patients

Health insurance literacy among head and neck cancer patients and their caregivers: A cross-sectional pilot study

Objective

Health insurance literacy interventions may reduce financial burden and its effects on cancer patients and their caregivers. However, little is known about the health insurance literacy levels of head and neck cancer (HNC) patients and their caregivers. We assessed the feasibility of screening for health insurance literacy in a pilot study and described the health insurance literacy levels of HNC patients and their caregivers.

Methods

We administered a survey that assessed demographics and subjective and objective health insurance literacy to HNC patients and their caregivers. Subjective health insurance literacy was measured through the Health Insurance Literacy Measure (score range: 0-84). Objective health insurance literacy was measured through correct answers to a previously developed 10-question knowledge test. Due to a small sample size, inferential statistics were not used; we instead descriptively reported findings.

Results

The pilot included 48 HNC patients and 13 caregivers. About 44.4% of patients and 30.8% of caregivers demonstrated low health insurance literacy (HILM ≤60). On the 10-item knowledge test, patients had an average of 6.8 (SD: 2.3) correct responses and caregivers had 7.8 (SD: 1.1) correct responses. Calculating out-of-pocket costs for out-of-network services was challenging; only 9.5% of patients and 0% of caregivers answered correctly.

Conclusion

Additional outreach strategies may be needed to supplement screening for health insurance literacy. Areas of focus for interventions include improving understanding of how to calculate financial responsibility for health care services and filing an appeal for health insurance claim denial.

Level of Evidence

IV.

Trends in perioperative outcomes of hospitals performing major cancer surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Cancer surgery outcomes at National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers (NCI-CCs) have been shown to vary, and have not been uniformly better than outcomes among non-NCI-CCs. We aimed to assess whether NCI-CCs have improved their short-term outcomes over time and whether variation across these centers has changed.

METHODS

Patients who underwent colectomy, esophagectomy, hepatectomy, pancreatectomy, and proctectomy for cancer were identified from the 2010 to 2016 American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program registry. Hospital trends in risk-adjusted, smoothed observed-to-expected ratios were assessed to evaluate improvement and variation in perioperative complications, stratified by NCI-CC status.

RESULTS

Complications occurred in 18.8% of 204 732 patients who underwent major cancer operations at 645 hospitals, and complications occurred in 19.9% of 60,903 patients at 54 NCI-CCs studied. More NCI-CCs than non-NCI-CCs improved over the period (85.2% vs 58.4%, P < 0.001; relative risk [RR] 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28-1.66); this remained significant after adjusting for years of participation (RR 1.33, 95% CI, 1.17-1.51). Variation in performance remained unchanged over time.

CONCLUSION

NCI-CCs were detected to have improved over a contemporary seven-year period and to have improved more than non-NCI-CCs. However, NCI-CCs do not uniformly outperform non-NCI-CCs, and variation in perioperative outcomes remains, warranting continued quality improvement efforts targeting cancer-specific operations.

Associations between nurse education and experience and the risk of mortality and adverse events in acute care hospitals: A systematic review of observational studies

OBJECTIVES

To provide knowledge from the summarization of the evidence on the: a) associations between nurse education and experience and the occurrence of mortality and adverse events in acute care hospitals, and; b) benefits to patients and organizations of the recent Institute of Medicine's recommendation that 80% of registered nurses should be educated at the baccalaureate degree by 2020.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search of English and French literature was conducted in six electronic databases: 1) Medline, 2) PubMed, 3) CINAHL, 4) Scopus, 5) Campbell, and 6) Cochrane databases. Additional studies were identified by searching bibliographies, prior reviews, and by contacting authors.

REVIEW METHOD

Studies were included if they: a) were published between January 1996 and August 2017; b) were based on a quantitative research design; c) examined the associations between registered nurse education or experience and at least one independently measured adverse event, and; d) were conducted in an adult acute care setting. Data were independently extracted, analysed, and synthesized by two authors and discrepancies were resolved by consensus. The methodological heterogeneity of the reviewed studies precluded the use of meta-analysis techniques. However, the methodological quality of each study was assessed using the STROBE criteria.

FINDINGS

Among 2109 retrieved articles, 27 studies (24 cross-sectional and three longitudinal studies) met our inclusion criteria. These studies examined 18 distinct adverse events, with mortality and failure to rescue being the most frequently investigated events. Overall, higher levels of education were associated with lower risks of failure to rescue and mortality in 75% and 61.1% of the reviewed studies pertaining to these adverse events, respectively. Nurse education was inconsistently related to the occurrence of the other events, which were the focus of only a small number of studies. Only one study examined the 80% threshold proposed by the Institute of Medicine and found evidence that it is associated with lower odds of hospital readmission and shorter lengths of stay, but unrelated to mortality. Nurse experience was inconsistently related to adverse event occurrence.

CONCLUSION

While evidence suggests that higher nurse education is associated with lower risks of mortality and failure to rescue, longitudinal studies are needed to better ascertain these associations and determine the specific thresholds that minimize risks. Further studies are needed to better document the association of nurse education and experience with other nursing-sensitive adverse events, as well as the benefits to patients and organizations of the Institute of Medicine's recommendation.

Relation Between Narrow Networks and Providers of Cancer Care

Purpose Health insurers offer plans covering a narrow subset of providers in an attempt to lower premiums and compete for consumers. However, narrow networks may limit access to high-quality providers, particularly those caring for patients with cancer. Methods We examined provider networks offered on the 2014 individual health insurance exchanges, assessing oncologist supply and network participation in areas that do and do not contain one of 69 National Cancer Institute (NCI)-Designated Cancer Centers. We characterized a network's inclusion of oncologists affiliated with NCI-Designated Cancer Centers relative to oncologists excluded from the network within the same region and assessed the relationship between this relative inclusion and each network's breadth. We repeated these analyses among networks offered in the same regions as the subset of 27 NCI-Designated Cancer Centers identified as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Cancer Centers. Results In regions containing NCI-Designated Cancer Centers, there were 13.7 oncologists per 100,000 residents and 4.9 (standard deviation [SD], 2.8) networks covering a mean of 39.4% (SD, 26.2%) of those oncologists, compared with 8.8 oncologists per 100,000 residents and 3.2 (SD, 2.1) networks covering on average 49.9% (SD, 26.8%) of the area's oncologists ( P < .001 for all comparisons). There was a strongly significant correlation ( r = 0.4; P < .001) between a network's breadth and its relative inclusion of oncologists associated with NCI-Designated Cancer Centers; this relationship held when considering only affiliation with NCCN Cancer Centers. Conclusion Narrower provider networks are more likely to exclude oncologists affiliated with NCI-Designated or NCCN Cancer Centers. Health insurers, state regulators, and federal lawmakers should offer ways for consumers to learn whether providers of cancer care with particular affiliations are in or out of narrow provider networks.

Toxicity-Related Factors Associated With Use of Services Among Community Oncology Patients

PURPOSE

Community oncology practices frequently manage chemotherapy-associated toxicities, which may disrupt treatment, impair quality of life, and induce unplanned service use. We sought to understand the patterns and correlates of unplanned health care service use among patients receiving first-cycle chemotherapy at five community-based ambulatory oncology practices.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A survey study examined the dichotomous outcome of unplanned service use, defined as oncologist visits, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations, resulting from toxicity-related factors. Newly diagnosed patients with breast, lung, head and neck, or colorectal cancer or non-Hodgkin lymphoma were recruited during the first chemotherapy cycle. Before beginning the second cycle of chemotherapy, patients completed a questionnaire that measured unplanned service use and overall distress, plus severity of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, mouth sores, intravenous catheter problems, pain, fever and chills, extremity edema, and dyspnea on a 5-point scale (1, did not experience; 5, disabling). Medical record reviews captured chemotherapy doses, comorbid conditions, and supportive care interventions. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with unplanned service use, with random effects specified for each clinic.

RESULTS

Among 106 patients (white, 98%; female, 74.5%; mean age ± standard deviation, 60 ± 11 years), frequently reported toxicities were pain, nausea, diarrhea, and constipation. Thirty-six patients (34%) reported unplanned service use: 29% reported oncologist visits, 14% reported emergency department visits, and 8% reported hospitalizations. Factors significantly associated with unplanned service use were high patient-reported distress and receipt of colony-stimulating factor.

CONCLUSION

Service use resulting from toxicity-related factors occurs frequently in community oncology settings. Monitoring toxicity patterns and outcomes can inform proactive symptom management approaches to reduce toxicity burden between scheduled visits.

Use of Electronic Health-Related Datasets in Nursing and Health-Related Research

Datasets of gigabyte size are common in medical sciences. There is increasing consensus that significant untapped knowledge lies hidden in these large datasets. This review article aims to discuss Electronic Health-Related Datasets (EHRDs) in terms of types, features, advantages, limitations, and possible use in nursing and health-related research. Major scientific databases, MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, and Scopus, were searched for studies or review articles regarding using EHRDs in research. A total number of 442 articles were located. After application of study inclusion criteria, 113 articles were included in the final review. EHRDs were categorized into Electronic Administrative Health-Related Datasets and Electronic Clinical Health-Related Datasets. Subcategories of each major category were identified. EHRDs are invaluable assets for nursing the health-related research. Advanced research skills such as using analytical softwares, advanced statistical procedures, dealing with missing data and missing variables will maximize the efficient utilization of EHRDs in research.

A checklist for ascertaining study cohorts in oncology health services research using secondary data: report of the ISPOR oncology good outcomes research practices working group

OBJECTIVES

The ISPOR Oncology Special Interest Group formed a working group at the end of 2010 to develop standards for conducting oncology health services research using secondary data. The first mission of the group was to develop a checklist focused on issues specific to selection of a sample of oncology patients using a secondary data source.

METHODS

A systematic review of the published literature from 2006 to 2010 was conducted to characterize the use of secondary data sources in oncology and inform the leadership of the working group prior to the construction of the checklist. A draft checklist was subsequently presented to the ISPOR membership in 2011 with subsequent feedback from the larger Oncology Special Interest Group also incorporated into the final checklist.

RESULTS

The checklist includes six elements: identification of the cancer to be studied, selection of an appropriate data source, evaluation of the applicability of published algorithms, development of custom algorithms (if needed), validation of the custom algorithm, and reporting and discussions of the ascertainment criteria. The checklist was intended to be applicable to various types of secondary data sources, including cancer registries, claims databases, electronic medical records, and others.

CONCLUSIONS

This checklist makes two important contributions to oncology health services research. First, it can assist decision makers and reviewers in evaluating the quality of studies using secondary data. Second, it highlights methodological issues to be considered when researchers are constructing a study cohort from a secondary data source.