Benchmarking Cancer Centers: From Care Pathways to Integrated Practice Units

Value-Based Health Care for Prostate Cancer Centers by Implementing Specific Key Performance Indicators Using a Balanced Score Card

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PC) is the most common cancer in men in 112 countries, and accounts for 15% of cancers. Because it cannot be prevented, the rise in cases is inevitable, and improvements in diagnostic pathways and treatments are needed, as there is still a shortage of cost-effective diagnostics and widespread oncologically safe treatment options with measurable quality. As part of the implementation of a Full Cycle of Care, instruments have been developed to achieve value-based medicine, such as consistent commitment to measurability. One of these instruments is the Balanced Scorecard (BSC). Here, we propose the first BSC for prostate cancer (PC) treatment.

METHODS

BSCs are used to assess performance in healthcare organizations across four dimensions: financial, patient and referrer, process, and learning and development. This study aimed to identify Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for each perspective. A systematic literature search was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines using multiple databases and specific search terms to identify KPIs for PC care, excluding case reports and conference abstracts. In total, 44 reports were included in analyses and development of the PC-specific BSC.

RESULTS

In the present study, a PC-specific BSC and KPIs were defined for the four classic perspectives, as well as for a newly developed PC-Specific Disease and Outcome perspective, including patient-related parameters from the German Cancer Society and the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement. In addition, the Process perspective includes KPIs of fulfillment of continuing education of residents and the metrics of structured training of the radical prostatectomy procedure in the Learning and Development perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

The developed BSC provides a comprehensive set of perspectives for an Integrated Practice Unit or center in PC care, ensuring that the indicators remain manageable and applicable. The BSC facilitates value creation in line with Porter's Full Cycle of Care by systematically collecting and providing economic, personnel, and medical results, actions, and indicators. In particular, this BSC includes KPIs of structured training of practitioners and metrics of the German Cancer Society, that recently proved to improve PC patients outcomes.

Benchmarking Time-to-Treatment Initiation in Sarcoma Care Using Real-World-Time Data

Benchmarking is a fundamental tool for enhancing quality within a patient-centered healthcare framework. This study presents an analysis of time-to-treatment initiation (TTI) for sarcoma patients, utilizing a database encompassing 266 cases from the Swiss Sarcoma Network. Our findings indicate a median TTI of 30 days across the cohort, with bone sarcomas and deep soft tissue sarcomas demonstrating a shorter median TTI of 28 days, followed by superficial soft tissue sarcomas at 42 days. The data reveal that the use of real-world-time data (RWTD) may account for a longer TTI observed, as it offers more comprehensive capture of patient journeys, unlike conventional datasets. Notably, variability in TTI was observed between different treatment institutions, which underscores the need for standardized processes across centers. We advocate for a selective referral system to specialized centers to prevent capacity overload and ensure timely treatment initiation. Our analysis also identified significant delays in TTI for unplanned 'whoops'-resections, highlighting the importance of early specialist referral in optimizing treatment timelines. This study emphasizes the potential benefits of a streamlined, data-informed approach to sarcoma care. However, further research is required to establish the direct impact of integrated care models on TTI and patient outcomes in the context of sarcoma treatment.

Identification of an oncological clinical pathway through questionnaires to health professionals

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Unlocking the Power of Benchmarking: Real-World-Time Data Analysis for Enhanced Sarcoma Patient Outcomes

Benchmarking is crucial for healthcare providers to enhance quality and efficiency, notably for complex conditions like sarcomas. Multidisciplinary teams/sarcoma boards (MDT/SBs) are vital in sarcoma management, but differences in their processes can affect patient outcomes and treatment costs, despite adherence to international guidelines. To address this issue, this study aimed to compare two MDT/SBs and establish an interoperable digital platform, Sarconnector®, for real-time-world data assessment and automated analysis. The study included 983 patients, 46.0% of whom female, with a median age of 58 years, and 4.5% of patients presented with metastasis at diagnosis. Differences were observed in the number of first-time presentations, follow-up presentations, primary sarcomas, biopsies and chemotherapy indications between the two MDT/SB. The results highlight the importance of benchmarking and utilizing a harmonized data approach, such as the RWT approach provided by the Sarconnector®, to standardize and evaluate quality and cost metrics. By identifying areas of improvement and making data-driven decisions on the meta-level, healthcare providers can optimize resources and improve patient outcomes. In conclusion, benchmarking with the RWT harmonized data approach provided by the Sarconnector® can help healthcare providers improve the overall effectiveness of the healthcare system and achieve better outcomes for their patients in terms of both outcomes and costs.

Patient involvement in clinical pathway development, implementation and evaluation - A scoping review of international literature

OBJECTIVE

Although various pathway design methods recognize patients as stakeholders, an overview of current practice is lacking. This article describes the results of a literature review assessing patient involvement in clinical cancer pathway development, implementation and evaluation.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted following PRISMA-ScR. Two databases were searched to identify studies published in English between 2014 and 2021.

RESULTS

Of 12841articles identified 22 articles met the inclusion criteria and reported on one or more of the three phases: development phase (N = 2), implementation (N = 4), evaluation (N = 11), development/evaluation (N = 3), and implementation/evaluation (N = 2) of clinical pathways. The numbers of involved patients ranged from 10 to 793, and the reported methods varied considerably.

CONCLUSION

This review presents a synthesis of methods for involving patients in the clinical pathway lifecycle. No relationship was found between methods and the number of involved patients or between pathway complexity and methods. Although patients are seen as valuable stakeholders in the pathway design, to involve them in practice using the best practice can be improved.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The lack of a clear justification for the choice of methods and number of involved patients calls for further research and framework development to inform pathway developers.

Benchmarking of survival outcomes following haematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A review of existing processes and the introduction of an international system from the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) and the Joint Accreditation Committee of ISCT and EBMT (JACIE)

In many healthcare settings, benchmarking for complex procedures has become a mandatory requirement by competent authorities, regulators, payers and patients to assure clinical performance, cost-effectiveness and safe care of patients. In several countries inside and outside Europe, benchmarking systems have been established for haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), but access is not universal. As benchmarking is now integrated into the FACT-JACIE standards, the EBMT and JACIE established a Clinical Outcomes Group (COG) to develop and introduce a universal system accessible across EBMT members. Established systems from seven European countries (United Kingdom, Italy, Belgium, France, Germany, Spain, Switzerland), USA and Australia were appraised, revealing similarities in process, but wide variations in selection criteria and statistical methods. In tandem, the COG developed the first phase of a bespoke risk-adapted international benchmarking model for one-year survival following allogeneic and autologous HSCT based on current capabilities within the EBMT registry core dataset. Data completeness, which has a critical impact on validity of centre comparisons, is also assessed. Ongoing development will include further scientific validation of the model, incorporation of further variables (when appropriate) alongside implementation of systems for clinically meaningful interpretation and governance aiming to maximise acceptance to centres, clinicians, payers and patients across EBMT.

Integrated Practice Units: What Are They and How Can They Be Applied to Orthopaedic Trauma?

Musculoskeletal professionals are looking for opportunities to provide integrated patient-centered models of care. Integrated practice units (IPUs) are structurally and functionally organized around the patient's medical condition over a full cycle of care with a comprehensive range of services delivered by dedicated multidisciplinary teams. Although IPUs have been developed for chronic orthopaedic conditions, such as hip and knee osteoarthritis, relatively little has been explored in relation to orthopaedic trauma. Development of novel IPUs for managing musculoskeletal injuries may help surgeons to better contend with the substantial burden associated with these conditions on the quality of life of individual patients and society at large. This review explores the challenges and unmet needs unique to orthopaedic trauma that could be bridged by high-value, integrated patient-centered models of care. It also provides a framework for the design and implementation of IPUs and the rationale of this framework in 3 major populations: ambulatory trauma, fragility fractures, and complex polytrauma. To conclude, in this review, we consider the mechanism and impact of alternative payment models in this setting.

Turning teams and pathways into integrated practice units: Appearance characteristics and added value

It has been 12 years after Porter and Teisberg published their landmark manuscript on "Redefining Health Care." Apart from stressing the need for a fundamental change from fee-for-service to value or outcome-based financing and to a focus on reducing waste, they emphasized the need to work along patient pathways and in Integrated Practice Units to overcome function based and specialist group silos and promote working in multidisciplinary patient-oriented teams. Integrated Practice Units are defined as "organized around the patient and providing the full cycle of care for a medical condition, including patient education, engagement, and follow-up and encompass inpatient, outpatient and rehabilitative care as well as supporting services." Although relatively few papers are published with empirical evidence on Integrated Practice Units development, some providers have impressively developed pathways and integrated care toward alignment with Integrated Practice Units criteria. From the field, we learn that possible advantages lay in improving patient centeredness, breaking through professional boundaries, and reducing waste in unnecessary duplications. A firm body of evidence on the added value of turning pathways into Integrated Practice Units is hard to find and this leaves room for much variation. Although intuitively attractive, this development requires staff efforts and costs and therefore cost-effectiveness and budget impact studies are much needed. Randomized controlled trials may be difficult to realize in organizational research, it is long known that turning to alternative designs such as larger case study series and before-after designs can be helpful. Thus, it can become clear what added value is achievable and how to reach that.