1
|
Weng J, Mesko S, Chronowski G, Lee P, Choi S, Das P, Koong AC, French K, Aloia T, Ehlers R, Elrod-Joplin D, Kerr A, Smith R, Martinez W, Bloom E, Shah SJ, Ning MS, Liao Z, Herman J, Moningi S, Moreno AC, Nguyen QN. Optimizing Outpatient Radiation Oncology Consult Workflow by Using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing: Efficiency and Financial Impacts. JCO Oncol Pract 2024; 20:732-738. [PMID: 38330252 DOI: 10.1200/op.23.00037] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2023] [Revised: 08/31/2023] [Accepted: 01/03/2024] [Indexed: 02/10/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Clinical efficiency is a key component of value-based health care. Our objective here was to identify workflow inefficiencies by using time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) and evaluate the implementation of a new clinical workflow in high-volume outpatient radiation oncology clinics. METHODS Our quality improvement study was conducted with the Departments of GI, Genitourinary (GU), and Thoracic Radiation Oncology at a large academic cancer center and four community network sites. TDABC was used to create process maps and optimize workflow for outpatient consults. Patient encounter metrics were captured with a real-time status function in the electronic medical record. Time metrics were compared using Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS Individual patient encounter data for 1,328 consults before the intervention and 1,234 afterward across all sections were included. The median overall cycle time was reduced by 21% in GI (19 minutes), 18% in GU (16 minutes), and 12% at the community sites (9 minutes). The median financial savings per consult were $52 in US dollars (USD) for the GI, $33 USD for GU, $30 USD for thoracic, and $42 USD for the community sites. Patient satisfaction surveys (from 127 of 228 patients) showed that 99% of patients reported that their providers spent adequate time with them and 91% reported being seen by a care provider in a timely manner. CONCLUSION TDABC can effectively identify opportunities to improve clinical efficiency. Implementing workflow changes on the basis of our findings led to substantial reductions in overall encounter cycle times across several departments, as well as high patient satisfaction and significant financial savings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julius Weng
- Division of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Shane Mesko
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center, San Diego, CA
| | | | - Percy Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope National Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Seungtaek Choi
- Division of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Prajnan Das
- Division of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Albert C Koong
- Division of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Katy French
- Division of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Thomas Aloia
- Surgical Oncology, Ascension Health, Pearland, TX
| | - Richie Ehlers
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Ashley Kerr
- Division of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Regina Smith
- Division of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Wendi Martinez
- Institute for Cancer Care Innovation, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Elizabeth Bloom
- Division of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Shalin J Shah
- Division of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Matthew S Ning
- Division of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Zhongxing Liao
- Division of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Joseph Herman
- Radiation Medicine, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Lake Success, NY
| | - Shalini Moningi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
| | - Amy C Moreno
- Division of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Quynh-Nhu Nguyen
- Division of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Hoffman KE, Smith BD, Singh P, Qiao W, Bloom ES, Chu C, Clemens M, Ehlers R, Rosa H, Joyner MM, Largo R, Mitchell MP, Tamirisa N, Villa M, Woodward WA, Kuerer HM, Schaverien M. Prospective Clinical Trial of Premastectomy Radiotherapy Followed by Immediate Breast Reconstruction for Operable Breast Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:e179-e180. [PMID: 37784797 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.1030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) Radiation delivered prior to mastectomy and autologous breast reconstruction may avoid the adverse effects of radiation on autologous donor tissue while providing the psychologic benefit of immediate reconstruction. We aimed to study the feasibility of premastectomy radiation therapy (PreMRT). MATERIALS/METHODS A total of 50 women enrolled in a prospective trial of preoperative radiation to the breast and regional nodes followed by mastectomy with axillary evaluation and immediate breast reconstruction. The trial was embedded in a randomized trial of hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated regional nodal irradiation (NCT02912312). Eligible women enrolled from 2018-22, had cT0-T3 N0-3 breast cancer, and a pre-operative recommendation for radiation. The primary outcome was frequency of complete free flap loss. Mastectomy skin flap necrosis was assessed by validated SKIN grading score. The Satisfaction with Breast Cosmetic Outcomes Scales evaluated patient satisfaction with cosmetic result. Descriptive statistics and 95% exact confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS One patient withdrew prior to any treatment and one elected not to have breast reconstruction. Median age of the 48 women completing PreMRT and reconstruction was 48 [range 31-72]. Most had ER-positive HER2-negative (77%), cT3 (54%) or cT2 (38%), cN1 (79%) disease and received 50 Gy in 25 fractions (n = 24) or 40.05 Gy in 15 fractions (n = 23). Four received 10-16 Gy internal mammary or infraclavicular boost. 35% VMAT, 48% matched photon-electron, and 17% partially-wide-tangent technique. Median time to surgery was 23 days [14-85]. Skin reaction delayed surgery for one patient. Most had skin-sparing mastectomy (92%) and axillary lymph node dissection (67%). 12 surgeons performed the reconstructions: 35 deep inferior epigastric perforators; 4 profunda artery perforator; 2 muscle-sparing transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous; 1 latissimus dorsi (LD); 2 LD/implant; 2 LD/tissue expander (TE); and 2 subpectoral (SP) TE. There were no complete flap losses. Two patients (4.4%, 95% CI 0.5%-14.8%) with free flaps had partial flap loss with revision surgery. Both patients with SP TEs had infections and unplanned reoperation. The protocol was subsequently amended to not allow SP TE reconstruction. Eight patients had skin flap necrosis: 5 partial and 3 full thickness necrosis; only 1 required operative debridement. Seven had pathologic complete response. At six months 19/31 (61%) reported being "quite a bit" or "very much" satisfied with how they looked in the mirror clothed. There are no recurrences with a median follow up of 33 months [5-119]. CONCLUSION Radiation treatment of the breast and lymph node basins prior to mastectomy with immediate autologous reconstruction is feasible. There were no autologous flap loses and complication rates are similar to reconstruction after radiation series. This promising strategy reduces time to autologous reconstruction and merits further prospective study.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K E Hoffman
- Department of Breast Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - B D Smith
- Department of Breast Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - P Singh
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - W Qiao
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - E S Bloom
- Department of Breast Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - C Chu
- Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - M Clemens
- Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - R Ehlers
- Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - H Rosa
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - M M Joyner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - R Largo
- Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - M P Mitchell
- Department of Breast Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - N Tamirisa
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - M Villa
- Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - W A Woodward
- Department of Breast Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - H M Kuerer
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - M Schaverien
- Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Everett D, Ke W, Paquet JF, Vujanovic G, Bass SA, Du L, Gale C, Heffernan M, Heinz U, Liyanage D, Luzum M, Majumder A, McNelis M, Shen C, Xu Y, Angerami A, Cao S, Chen Y, Coleman J, Cunqueiro L, Dai T, Ehlers R, Elfner H, Fan W, Fries RJ, Garza F, He Y, Jacak BV, Jacobs PM, Jeon S, Kim B, Kordell M, Kumar A, Mak S, Mulligan J, Nattrass C, Oliinychenko D, Park C, Putschke JH, Roland G, Schenke B, Schwiebert L, Silva A, Sirimanna C, Soltz RA, Tachibana Y, Wang XN, Wolpert RL. Phenomenological Constraints on the Transport Properties of QCD Matter with Data-Driven Model Averaging. Phys Rev Lett 2021; 126:242301. [PMID: 34213947 DOI: 10.1103/physrevlett.126.242301] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/02/2020] [Revised: 03/05/2021] [Accepted: 05/27/2021] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
Using combined data from the Relativistic Heavy Ion and Large Hadron Colliders, we constrain the shear and bulk viscosities of quark-gluon plasma (QGP) at temperatures of ∼150-350 MeV. We use Bayesian inference to translate experimental and theoretical uncertainties into probabilistic constraints for the viscosities. With Bayesian model averaging we propagate an estimate of the model uncertainty generated by the transition from hydrodynamics to hadron transport in the plasma's final evolution stage, providing the most reliable phenomenological constraints to date on the QGP viscosities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- D Everett
- Department of Physics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA
| | - W Ke
- Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, California 94270, USA
- Nuclear Science Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94270, USA
| | - J-F Paquet
- Department of Physics, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA
| | - G Vujanovic
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201, USA
| | - S A Bass
- Department of Physics, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA
| | - L Du
- Department of Physics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA
| | - C Gale
- Department of Physics, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec City H3A 2T8, Canada
| | - M Heffernan
- Department of Physics, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec City H3A 2T8, Canada
| | - U Heinz
- Department of Physics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA
| | - D Liyanage
- Department of Physics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA
| | - M Luzum
- Instituto de Fìsica, Universidade de São Paulo, C.P. 66318, 05315-970 São Paulo, SP, Brazil
| | - A Majumder
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201, USA
| | - M McNelis
- Department of Physics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA
| | - C Shen
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201, USA
- RIKEN BNL Research Center, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973, USA
| | - Y Xu
- Department of Physics, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA
| | - A Angerami
- Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California 94550, USA
| | - S Cao
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201, USA
| | - Y Chen
- Laboratory for Nuclear Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA
- Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA
| | - J Coleman
- Department of Statistical Science, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA
| | - L Cunqueiro
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee 37996, USA
- Physics Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830, USA
| | - T Dai
- Department of Physics, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA
| | - R Ehlers
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee 37996, USA
- Physics Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830, USA
| | - H Elfner
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany
- Institute for Theoretical Physics, Goethe University, 60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
- Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, 60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - W Fan
- Department of Physics, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA
| | - R J Fries
- Cyclotron Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, USA
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, USA
| | - F Garza
- Cyclotron Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, USA
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, USA
| | - Y He
- Key Laboratory of Quark and Lepton Physics (MOE) and Institute of Particle Physics, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079, China
| | - B V Jacak
- Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, California 94270, USA
- Nuclear Science Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94270, USA
| | - P M Jacobs
- Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, California 94270, USA
- Nuclear Science Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94270, USA
| | - S Jeon
- Department of Physics, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec City H3A 2T8, Canada
| | - B Kim
- Cyclotron Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, USA
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, USA
| | - M Kordell
- Cyclotron Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, USA
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, USA
| | - A Kumar
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201, USA
| | - S Mak
- Department of Statistical Science, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA
| | - J Mulligan
- Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, California 94270, USA
- Nuclear Science Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94270, USA
| | - C Nattrass
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee 37996, USA
| | - D Oliinychenko
- Nuclear Science Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94270, USA
| | - C Park
- Department of Physics, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec City H3A 2T8, Canada
| | - J H Putschke
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201, USA
| | - G Roland
- Laboratory for Nuclear Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA
- Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA
| | - B Schenke
- Physics Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973, USA
| | - L Schwiebert
- Department of Computer Science, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48202, USA
| | - A Silva
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee 37996, USA
| | - C Sirimanna
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201, USA
| | - R A Soltz
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201, USA
- Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California 94550, USA
| | - Y Tachibana
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201, USA
| | - X-N Wang
- Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, California 94270, USA
- Nuclear Science Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94270, USA
- Key Laboratory of Quark and Lepton Physics (MOE) and Institute of Particle Physics, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079, China
| | - R L Wolpert
- Department of Statistical Science, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA
| |
Collapse
|